2021 (11) TMI 708 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- As the amount so received for proposed share subscription from the group co. i.e. EFPL was also repaid in the subsequent assessment years and thus amount kept in custody temporarily in a fiduciary capacity could not have been added in the hands of assessee by resorting to Section 68 - A reference was made to the judicial precedents, namely, CIT vs. Karaj Singh [2011 (3) TMI 951 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]); Smt. Panna Devi Chowdhary [1994 (3) TMI 80 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] & many more decisions for the proposition that the factum of repayment transgresses all other considerations and the question of bonafides of receipts of share application money fades into insignificance where the amount so received stands repaid and returned.

The facts in the instance are speaking for itself. We are fully convinced with the process of reasoning and the objective analysis by the CIT(A) and conclusion derived therefrom. We do not intend to repeat each and every observations. The action of CIT(A) is in consonance with the binding precedents of Jurisdictional High Court. Hence, we see no reason to depart from the rationale of the decision of the CIT(A) on reversal of additions under s.68 of the Act pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 in question.

Addition on account of low yield declared - HELD THAT:- AO has made discussions on mathematical calculations pertaining rolling material division, the additions have been made towards low yield in SMS Division.

CIT(A) observed that assessee has furnished explanation on all the documents seized during the course of search and the explanation of the assessee were test checked with reference to seized material, books of accounts, bills/invoices and other evidences and found to be satisfactory. It was further noted that the AO has not pointed out any infirmity in the explanation of the Assessee.

CIT(A) in our mind has analysed the factual matrix threadbare. Without repeating all the observations of the CIT(A), we find ourselves in complete agreement with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) - CIT(A) has objectively analyzed the factual situation and found complete absence of any adverse material against the assessee which can support the allegation of the AO towards unaccounted production presumed on the basis of alleged low yield declared by the assessee. On facts, the CIT(A) has found that the yield declared by the assessee is neither low nor the book results could be impeached by some tangible material to indulge in rejection of books of accounts. We see no discernible error whatsoever in the process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) while reversing the totally untenable action of the AO based on extraneous considerations.

It is also pertinent here to note that identical issue cropped in the case of a group co. ( Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd.) in the same search and engaged in the same business. The standard yield of 89% adopted in that case was set aside by the CIT(A) and book results were accepted in the identical factual matrix. The Revenue challenged the reversal of additions on account of lower yield.

Co-ordinate bench in DCIT vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd. [2019 (11) TMI 922 - ITAT RAIPUR] in strikingly similar factual matrix involving same issue and arising from same search, endorsed the order of CIT(A) in relation to AY 2009-10-2013 and struck down the additions made by AO. Hence, the issue, in any case, is not res integra any more in the light of decision of the co-ordinate bench. Whatever way we see, case of the revenue has little merit and thus unsustainable. We, thus, decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this score.

Additions on account of excess stock of finished goods/ raw material stated to be discovered during the search - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) took cognizance of certificate from registered valuer furnished by the assessee to support its stance. We notice that the CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee after recording tell-tale facts, such as, DRV having admitted that no scientific or mechanical equipment was used by him for the purposes of valuation; no physical verification was carried out at all etc.. The whole quantification is made on a wrong foundation of length of channels etc. After having analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has objectively concluded that addition to the total income on account of unexplained investment towards excess stock on account of structures and channels is without any sound basis is patently unjustified. We find that the CIT(A) has arrived at his findings with very logical analysis in sync with factual matrix. Such finding of fact does not call for any interference for any reason.

With reference to excess stock on account of billets and slab cuttings and sponge iron, the CIT(A) has observed that the dispute revolves around the rate adopted by the AO and there is no dispute regarding the total quantity. It was noticed by the CIT(A) that the assessee has offered the income for taxation based on average rate for billets / slab cutting/ sponge iron as against uniform rate adopted by AO. The basis of rate adopted by AO was not assigned. Thus, having regard to the declarations already made by the assessee and in the absence of any definite basis in the action of AO, no further additions were found sustainable in the absence of any evidence of adversial nature. In summation, we see no error in the process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) and conclusion thereon. The revenue could not rebut the factual findings of the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) is self-explanatory and does not require any reiteration. We thus decline to interfere.