Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1075 - AT - Income TaxValuation-of-stock found during the survey - Held that:- No admission made in a statement recorded u/s 133A on oath during survey can be relied as evidence against the maker or the assessee - In the immediate two preceding assessment years, the assessee's trading records were accepted by the Department - The closing stock as on 31-03-2007 as accepted by the Department was ₹ 80,01,286/- , the opening stock taken by the assessee of ₹ 80,01,286/- is to be treated as accepted figure - During survey no other incriminating document / loose paper, showing unrecorded purchases or unrecorded expense or sales, was found - There is no corroborative evidence in the possession of the Revenue to substantiate the impugned undisclosed income - The closing stock taken by the assessee at ₹ 2,61,77,707/- as on 31-03-2008 gives gross profit rate of 76.02% - If the closing stock considered by the AO is added in the trading account as on 31-03-2008, the gross profit rate would become 268% and this figure seems to be just impossible to be treated as a gross profit rate under any circumstance in such type of business and particular keeping in view the past history of the assessee. Stock has been increased by tampering the inventory-sheet by changing the quantity of stock items as pointed out by the hand-writing / forensic experts in their reports - The reports of hand-writing experts have not been considered either by the AO or by the ld. CIT(A), although, one such report was obtained by the AO himself - The entire survey proceeding was vide-graphed but despite repeated requests neither a copy of the same was supplied to the assessee nor it was used by the Department - The assessee also got a report from another hand-writing expert - As per the report of the expert appointed by the Department, it has been observed that there are manipulation in the inventory-sheet but thereafter he has qualified those mistakes/ manipulations as bonafide mistakes, by doing so, the expert has exceeded his jurisdiction - Moreover, in the report of expert got by the assessee also, such tampering with the stock inventory have been pointed out - There has been mistakes in taking stock position by the Revenue and the impugned inventory cannot be treated as a sacrosanct document - Certain cuttings and over-writings have been noticed in the inventory sheets - There are mistakes in the inventory which may be intentional or otherwise - The assessee should not be allowed to suffer by the mistakes committed by the survey team. The valuation of the inventory taken on the tag price after reducing the discount and the deduction for gross profit rate or alleged cost price has been worked out after reducing discount and deduction on account of gross profit rate is much higher than the actual sale price of the some items - This shows that neither physical counting of stock nor valuation of stock was done properly, it was based on pure estimation - Discount given @ 20% seems to be on lower side whereas this discount in assessee's case and in the case of other assessees carrying on similar business is between 40% to 50% - If this ratio in taking inventory is applied on all items of inventory, there will be no excess stock. The AO was not having any valid material for making impugned addition except for the statement on surrender which we have held as unreliable in view of the legal position - The entries in the books of account are presumed to be true and correct unless proved otherwise in view of the provision of Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1881 - The AO has accepted the books of account of the assessee and he has not rejected them, at all - He has even not invoked the provision of 145 (3) of the Act - The declared results should have been accepted without any variation, especially when the assessee's trading results are better as compared to the immediate past year - There are numerous reasons for the rise in the gross profit rate in any year - When the AO accepted lower gross profit rates in the past and in future then this inference is found to be not justified - Rather the AO must be satisfied that in the year of survey, the assessee has been forced to declare much high rate of profit, more than other assessment years. The AO has accepted the trading results declared by the assessee - The working of the stock as per books of account as on the date of survey should have been based on gross profit rate of the year in which survey took place, more specifically on 28-01-2008 after expiry of 10 months of the commencement of the financial year under reference and out of total turnover of around ₹ 2.49 crores the sales of more than ₹ 2.02 crores (more than 81%) had already been shown and declared - The impact of the profit earned on such sales @ 76.02% should have been given to arrive at the actual stock as on the date of survey - The AO should have applied the gross profit rate of 76.02% as against 28.12% - Partly allowed in favour of assessee.
|