9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 334 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 69 as unexplained investments - difference in closing stock was survey conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 26.08.2015 - HELD THAT - AO has completed the assessment for the AY 2014-15 u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 08.08.2016 and has accepted additional income offered by the assessee on account of difference in stock in trade found during the course of survey - once the AO has accepted the fact that the assessee has admitted difference in stock in trade as on 31.03.2014 and further, the same had been admitted for the AY 2014-15, he ought not to have made additions for the very same difference in stock in trade for the AY 2015-16. No matter, the survey must have taken place on 26.08.2015, but the fact needs to be considered, is difference in stock in trade pertains to which assessment year. In this case, the AO had worked out the difference in stock in trade for the AY 2014-15 (FY 2013-14) and the assessee had also admitted the additional income for the AY 2014-15. Assessee has rightly offered additional income on account of difference in stock in trade for the AY 2014-15 and the AO has rightly assessed the same for the AY 2014-15. CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly deleted the additions made by the AO towards unexplained investment on account of difference in stock in trade for the AY 2015-16 including business profit on account of difference in stock in trade. Hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?2,46,66,340/- made under Section 69 as unexplained investments. 2. Assessment of excess stock disclosed during the survey in the assessment year 2015-16. 3. Addition of ?61,27,745/- towards business profit. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of ?2,46,66,340/- Made Under Section 69 as Unexplained Investments: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?2,46,66,340/- made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investments. The survey conducted on 26.08.2015 revealed excess stock valued at ?3,07,94,175/-, which the managing partner disclosed. The AO, during the assessment for AY 2015-16, considered this excess stock as unexplained investment and added it to the income. However, the assessee argued that the closing stock as on 31.03.2014 was reworked to ?2,46,66,430/- based on the cost of goods sold instead of the sales price adopted by the AO. This revised value was accepted by the AO for AY 2014-15. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the AO made a fundamental mistake by adopting the sale price instead of the cost price to determine the closing stock. The CIT(A) concluded that the addition for AY 2015-16 was unwarranted as the difference in stock had already been accounted for in AY 2014-15. 2. Assessment of Excess Stock Disclosed During the Survey in the Assessment Year 2015-16: The AO added ?2,46,66,430/- as unexplained investment for AY 2015-16, arguing that the excess stock found during the survey should be assessed in the year of the survey. The assessee contended that the difference in closing stock was already offered as additional income for AY 2014-15, which the AO had accepted. The CIT(A) noted that the excess stock was attributable to the business of textiles and had already been considered in the assessment for AY 2014-15. Thus, reassessing the same amount in AY 2015-16 under Section 69 was incorrect. The CIT(A) emphasized that the same income cannot be taxed twice, and the addition for AY 2015-16 was patently misconceived. 3. Addition of ?61,27,745/- Towards Business Profit: The AO added ?61,27,745/- as business income, claiming it represented the difference between the excess stock originally computed during the survey and the amount added under Section 69. The CIT(A) found no basis for this addition, noting that the survey did not reveal any sales outside the books. The discrepancy was solely in stock valuation, and no material suggested unrecorded sales. The CIT(A) concluded that the addition was unjustified and appeared to be an unwarranted presumption to match the amount disclosed during the survey. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, agreeing that the AO made a fundamental mistake in adopting the sale price instead of the cost price to determine the closing stock. The Tribunal noted that the difference in stock had already been accounted for in AY 2014-15, and reassessing the same in AY 2015-16 was incorrect. The addition of ?61,27,745/- towards business profit was also deemed unjustified due to the lack of evidence for unrecorded sales. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
