Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 694 - HC - Income TaxStock of raw material disclosed at the time of survey - Whether can be added both u/s 69B as well as 69C of the Act? - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that during scrutiny, the assessee himself has disclosed the fact that in his books of account, he had shown less stock to the tune of ₹ 10,06,987/-. It is also an admitted fact that when the physical stock was examined by the authority, the value of the said stock was ₹ 13,33,485/-, however, as per the books of account, the value of stock was to the tune of ₹ 3,26,498/i.e. amount to the tune of ₹ 10,06,987/- was not recorded in the books of account. However, it is admitted by the assessee himself that he has not completely disclosed the stock in the books of account. Now, considering the proviso of Section 69(B) of the act, we are of the opinion that the assessee had not fully disclosed the stocks in the books of account and therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (Appeals) have rightly observed that the case of the assessee would fall under the proviso of Section 69(b) of the act. Disallowance of set off of business loss with income from other sources for the same year? - Held that:- We are also of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned advocate is that the case would fall under the proviso of Section 69(c) of the act does not apply to the facts of the present case. It is not the case of the revenue that there is an unexplained expenditure, which would cover under the proviso of this Act and therefore, the assessee would not be entitled for the set off under the proviso of Section 71 of the act. As far as applicability of the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. [2015 (7) TMI 691 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is concerned, the same would be applicable since the Court had held that the amount of excess stock would fall under the definition of income as per Section 14 of the Act and therefore, the assessee would be entitled for the set off under proviso of section 71 of the act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the CIT (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have committed error in refusing giving set off to the assessee under Section 71 of the act - Decided in favour of assessee.
|