Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (9) TMI 28 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 21,20,240 on account of alleged difference in stock.
2. Addition of Rs. 49,39,400 on account of allegedly unaccounted receivables.
3. Disallowance of remuneration to partners amounting to Rs. 1,53,346 under section 40b of the IT Act.
4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) for alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
5. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the IT Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 21,20,240 on Account of Alleged Difference in Stock
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in wholesale business of vegetables and grains, was subject to a survey under section 133A of the IT Act on January 7, 2011. The survey revealed a physical stock valued at Rs. 24,78,520, while the stock recorded in the books was Rs. 3,58,280, leading to a discrepancy of Rs. 21,20,240. The managing partner admitted the discrepancy during the survey but later contended that the stock valuation was arbitrary and impractical due to the perishable nature of goods. The AO disregarded this contention, noting that the stock of onions and garlic, which are not immediately perishable, was found in significant quantities. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing the physical evidence and the partner's acknowledgment during the survey.

The Tribunal, however, noted that the excess stock represents unaccounted purchases for future sales, and only the profit element embedded in such stock should be taxed. Citing precedents from the Gujarat High Court and Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal concluded that only a percentage of profit should be added to the income, not the entire stock value. The Tribunal decided to apply a profit rate of 5% on the excess stock value.

Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 49,39,400 on Account of Allegedly Unaccounted Receivables
During the survey, a loose sheet (Annexure A-10) reflecting receivables of Rs. 51,52,720 was found. The managing partner admitted these as unaccounted receivables but only offered Rs. 2,13,320 as income, representing the gross profit. The AO added the balance amount of Rs. 49,39,400 to the income, which was upheld by the CIT(A), who noted the lack of evidence for any unaccounted expenditure.

The Tribunal agreed that the receivables represent unaccounted sales, but only the profit element should be taxed. Referring to the Gujarat High Court's judgment in CIT vs. President Industries, the Tribunal ruled that only the profit embedded in the receivables should be added to the income. The Tribunal decided to apply a profit rate of 5% on the total receivables.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Remuneration to Partners Amounting to Rs. 1,53,346
The assessee did not press this ground of appeal due to the smallness of the amount. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this ground.

Issue 4: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(l)(c)
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis, implying that the initiation of penalty proceedings would follow the outcome of the substantive additions.

Issue 5: Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis, implying that the interest charges would follow the outcome of the substantive additions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deciding that only the profit element embedded in the unaccounted stock and receivables should be taxed at a rate of 5%. The disallowance of remuneration to partners was dismissed as it was not pressed by the assessee. The issues related to penalty proceedings and interest charges were not specifically addressed, implying they would follow the substantive additions' outcome.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates