2021 (11) TMI 707 - ITAT RAIPUR

Validity of proceedings u/s.153A - addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- As the credit for share application money was accepted in the regular assessment under 143(3) prior to search after making enquiries. The subscriber co. namely Antariksh Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and Escort Finvest Pvt. Ltd. were found to be group cos. The assessments of the subscriber companies carried out under S. 143(3) / 143(3) r.w.s. 147 were noted. It was further noted the same AO in the case of other group concern accepted the creditworthiness of these cos. for subscription of Pref. share capital. The adverse inference drawn by the AO was found to be unsubstantiated and in the realm of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. On legal position, the CIT(A) has referred to large number of judicial pronouncements. Without reiterating the different facets analyzed by the CIT(A), Complete force in his view.

After detailed examination, the CIT(A) eventually set aside the additions made by the AO under s. 68 in the unabated search assessment without any iota of incriminating material to support the allegation of accommodation entries. We completely endorse his action on merits without demur. The objection of the Revenue is found to be unsubstantiated and dehors the tell-tale evidences and hence not sustainable.

Additions on low yield - Whether incriminating material were found in the course of search operations showing any unaccounted production or unaccounted sales resulting from alleged low yield on production shown in the books? - HELD THAT:- 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 error whatsoever in the process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) while reversing the totally untenable action of the AO. We, thus, decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this score.

Addition 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 showing the density of broken coal which was found to be at par with what has been used by the assessee. 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.. 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 coal 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 iron ore or fines, 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 - As noticed by the CIT(A) that the assessee has offered the income for taxation based on actual sales realization as iron ore fines are not purchased by the assessee. The sales register of the assessee was examined and the method was found satisfactory. Thus, having regard to the declarations already made by the assessee, no further additions were found sustainable in the absence of any evidence of adversial nature. In summation, we see no error in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) both on account of stock of coal and iron ore, in the absence of any concrete rebuttal thereof. We thus decline to interfere.