2019 (11) TMI 1055 - AT - Income Tax

Valuation of closing stock - HELD THAT - Once the AO agreed that the figures of production and sales furnished originally out of total production as per assessee s register is only 90,620 kgs. as on 31.3.2011, still he sustained the addition of ₹ 13,47,71,926, which is not proper. AO, though, himself satisfied about the correctness of the value of stock shown by the assessee in its return of income, he still wants to sustain the addition on the basis of the objections raised by the Tax Auditors, which is improper and unjustifiable. Accordingly, we agree with the finding of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition on this count.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the quantitative details of closing stock as mentioned in Form 3CD of the audit report should be relied upon.
2. Whether the addition of ?13,47,71,926 based on the closing stock value of 7,75,398 kg of shrimp was justified.
3. Whether the assessee's valuation of closing stock at ?32.19 per kg was correct.
4. Whether the assessee's failure to file a revised return with a revised auditor's report within the prescribed time limit impacts the case.
5. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reliance on Quantitative Details in Form 3CD:
The CIT(A) concluded that the quantitative details of closing stock as mentioned in Form 3CD of the audit report need not be relied upon due to an inadvertent mistake. The assessee argued that the figure of 7,75,398 kg in the audit report was a typographical error, and the correct closing stock was 90,620 kg. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, noting that the error was due to the inexperience of the auditor's staff.

2. Justification of Addition Based on Closing Stock Value:
The assessment was reopened under Section 148, leading to an addition of ?13,47,71,926 on account of undervaluation of closing stock. The Assessing Officer based this addition on the incorrect closing stock value of 7,75,398 kg. The CIT(A) found that the correct closing stock was 90,620 kg, not 7,75,398 kg. The Assessing Officer did not dispute the opening stock, purchases, production, and export sales figures, which supported the assessee's claim of a closing stock of 90,620 kg. Therefore, the addition was deemed unjustified.

3. Valuation of Closing Stock:
The Assessing Officer argued that the closing stock should have been valued at ?206 per kg, leading to an undervaluation of ?173.81 per kg. However, the assessee had valued the closing stock at ?275.39 per kg, which was higher than the Assessing Officer's figure. The CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer had initially accepted the closing stock value of ?2,49,56,300 but proceeded with the addition due to time constraints in verifying all registers and documents.

4. Impact of Not Filing Revised Return:
The CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not file a revised return with a revised auditor's report within the prescribed time limit. However, the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation that the error was a typographical mistake, and the correct quantitative details were provided during the appeal hearing. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer's reliance on the incorrect figures in Form 3CD was unjustified.

5. Deletion of Addition by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?13,47,71,926 made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the correct closing stock was 90,620 kg, not 7,75,398 kg. The CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer had initially accepted the correct figures but proceeded with the addition due to external audit queries. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the Assessing Officer's addition was based on incorrect figures and was not justified.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ?13,47,71,926 was upheld. The Tribunal found that the correct closing stock was 90,620 kg, and the valuation of ?2,49,56,300 was accurate. The Assessing Officer's reliance on incorrect figures in Form 3CD and the subsequent addition were deemed unjustified. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the quantitative details in Form 3CD need not be relied upon due to the inadvertent mistake.

← Previous Next →