2022 (12) TMI 31 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Valuation of closing stock - HELD THAT - On perusal of reply given by the assessee in respect of query in respect of closing stock shown shows that the method of valuation is very much available in the papers submitted before the AO. Thus, it cannot be said that the AO has not examined the method of valuation. Just because, the AO does not write detailed assessment order in respect of each of the issues and each of the view he has taken and the examination he had taken, it cannot be said that the order passed by the AO is without enquiry. It is the duty of the assessee to place all the details as called for by the AO in the course of scrutiny assessment before the AO. The law does not prescribe that the assessee must point out defect in its case also to the AO. AO is expected to and it is presume to have done all the examination that is required to be done when the details are before him. Variation in the purchases and sales - Purchase and sale, clearly shows the purchase include the purchase of consumables. The same is also inclusive of entry tax and the same has been brought out in the return filed in Form E-3, which is also before the AO. On perusal of the order of the Pr. CIT shows that he has referred to this issue, but has not given any specific findings. This clearly shows that the details were before the Assessing Officer and the fact that no addition has been made on this account shows that the AO has found the reply of the assessee to be reasonable and satisfactory. Cash deposits during the Demonetisation period which is identical to chart extracted by the Pr. CIT of the order u/s.263 clearly shows that the closing cash in hand as on 9.11.2016 is Rs.49,03,323.00. The chart clearly shows that this closing cash in hand is nothing but cash withdrawals from the bank account of the assessee. What the assessee has deposited is the amount of Rs.44.25 lakhs is nothing but cash withdrawn from the bank account. This being so, the chart itself is an explanation in respect of cash deposited in the bank account. Clearly, the AO has examined this issue and has not made any addition thereon. This being so, we are of the view that the issue has been considered by the AO in detail and the revision proposed by the Pr. CIT is only on presumptions and same is unsustainable. Consequently, the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 is found to be unsustainable and same stands quashed. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Valuation of closing stock
- Variation in purchases in trading account
- Deposit of demonetization currency

Valuation of closing stock:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Principal CIT, challenging the revision under section 263 of the Act. The Pr. CIT raised three issues: valuation of closing stock, variation in purchases and sales, and cash deposit during demonetization. The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the beneficiation of graphite, argued that the method of valuation remained consistent, supported by past years' records. The AO had examined the closing stock query, and the method of valuation was explained. The Tribunal noted that the AO's duty is to examine details provided, and the absence of a detailed assessment order does not imply lack of inquiry. The consistent method of valuation was upheld, and the Pr. CIT's revision was deemed unsustainable.

Variation in purchases in trading account:
The Pr. CIT questioned the variation between month-wise purchases and the profit and loss account figures. The assessee provided a breakdown of purchases, including consumables, which was examined by the AO. The Tribunal observed that the details were before the AO, and no specific findings were provided by the Pr. CIT. As no addition was made by the AO, it indicated satisfaction with the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal found the AO's consideration satisfactory, and the Pr. CIT's revision lacked merit, leading to the appeal's allowance.

Deposit of demonetization currency:
The issue of cash deposits during demonetization was analyzed by the AO during scrutiny assessment. The assessee clarified that the deposited amount was from cash withdrawals, supported by bank records. The Tribunal compared the closing cash in hand with the deposited amount, concluding that the AO had examined the issue thoroughly and made no additions. The Pr. CIT's revision was based on presumptions and deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the order under section 263 was quashed, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.