TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of stock written off for the impugned assessment year is at Rs. 16.96 crores. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that the inventory of stock written off pertains to financial years 2004-05 2005-06 is devoid of merits. Assessee has written off 100% inventory of cotton held and the value of said inventory is very high. When the assessee is taking such a drastic decisions which impacts its financial decision, it needs to report to the concerned authorities and also required to take approval from the Board of Directors and audit committee. In this case, although assessee claims that it has reported inventory write off to the shareholders in published quarterly financial report, but the CIT(A) recorded categorical findings that similar statement is absent in the final accounts submitted to shareholders in the annual general body meeting. Further, there is no iota of observations by the auditors in their auditors report submitted to the Board of Directors for the financial year 2012-13, even though, there is a requirement of law to report any adverse movement in inventory valuation. CIT(A) made further observations that the assessee could not file any evidence to prove th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24,344 towards write off of inventory. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeals ought to have deleted the addition made by the Deputy Com. of Income Tax on the facts of the case as the appellant had produced all the relevant records in support of its claim. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal ought to have allowed the appeal based on the material and evidences produced before him. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal ought to have allowed the depreciation as the appellant had temporarily suspended its' manufacturing operations. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant had enough unabsorbed brought forward business / depreciation loss and adjusted the same against the income. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is in the business of manufacturing of cotton yarn and knitted fabrics, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 22.09.2013, declaring net loss of Rs. 2,55,24,649/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny, and during the course of assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refully considered. The following points emanate from the annual report, financial statement and papers submissions filed by the assessee : It was stated that the inventory of cotton written off were procured during the years 2004 to 2006- The assessee was asked to submit details of material consumed from 2004 onwards. The relevant statement is annexed to this order. It can be seen that there was a steady movement of the inventory viz., cotton right from 2004 tilt 2011. The stork at dose as on 31.3.2005 and 31.3.2006 were only Rs.11.52 crores and Rs.11.34 crores respectively, It the inventory of cotton purchased during. 2004 to 2006 remained unutilized, then the dosing stock of these years would be more or at least equal to Rs. 16.96 crores and cannot be less than Rs.16. 96 crores. Further, in consumption of inventory, particularly that of perishable items like cotton, First-in-First-out (FIFO) method would be followed. from the annexure, it can be seen that during the year ended 01.3.2005 and 31.3.2009, the consumption was much higher than the purchases during the year. This implies that stock at commencement was fully consumed in these years, as per FIFO method. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entory followed by the management are reasonable and adequate in relation to the size of the company and the nature of its business. (iii) In our opinion, the company is generally maintaining proper records of its inventories and no material discrepancies were noticed on physical verification ... lt can be seen that there is no mention in the Auditor's Report about write off of the entire inventory, which is a significant event. Most importantly, the assessee company is a widely held company, listed in stock exchange. The alleged write off of inventory to the tune of Rs.16.96 crores is a major significant event whi.ch is required to be reported to the shareholders in the Annual Report. There is no such mention about write off/ of inventory in the Report to Shareholders. 2.3. The reason for such a write off of stock is not far to seek. During the relevant previous year, the assessee sold two pieces of vacant land at Chengalpattu for a total consideration of Rs.22,83,02,899. After reducing indexed cost of acquisition, the net long term capital gains was arrived at Rs.21,24,10,447. This long term capital gain was entirely set off against current year' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details of other expenses the fact that the appellant had written off the stock could not be known at all. The fact that the stock in 2005 was very much less than the stock written off would clearly prove that the stock written off was not out of the stock lying in 2005 especially when there were production subsequent to 2005 and the stock lying would have been consumed in the subsequent years. Though the appellant denies the method of FIFI followed it did not say the method followed by it. The appellant had not furnished the details of stock written off countwise to cross verify whether the said count of yarn was used subsequently or whether it was not fit for use. Though the insurance was against fire accident, whether the Insurance authorities inspected the stock and got satisfied with the value of Rs.20 cr. was not made clear. The appellant was not able to state as to what really happened to the alleged stock written off; whether it was destroyed or sold as scrap etc. The shareholders of the company which is listed company were not informed about the write off or such huge sum. Though in the advertisement for the Q3 published it was claimed to have stated the write off, simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) claims that there is no information on reporting to the concerned authorities, and also there is no qualified observations from the auditors of the company on this major issue, but what is required to be seen is whether any adverse comments has been made by the auditors on stock written off or not. In this case, the auditor of the company had given clean report without any adverse comments, which means there is no issue with regard to write off of inventory and consequent loss. Therefore, the AO and CIT(A) completely gone wrong in observing that the assessee could not file necessary evidence to prove the claim of loss on inventory written off. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand supporting the order of the CIT(A), submitted that facts brought out by the AO and CIT(A) clearly prove the intent of the assessee as per which for the impugned financial year relevant to assessment year 2013-14, the assessee has derived LTCG from sale of property and to offset said capital gains, the assessee has declared business loss by debiting written off inventory. Therefore, the AO and CIT(A) clearly held that the assessee has made tax planning to avoid payment of tax on capital gains and thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or loss. Further, although the assessee claims that inventory write off pertains to purchase of cotton made in the financial years 2004-05 2005-06, but on perusal of statement of movement of stock filed by the assessee, the closing stock of cotton as on 31.03.2006 was only at Rs. 11.34 crores, whereas, the value of stock written off for the impugned assessment year is at Rs. 16.96 crores. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that the inventory of stock written off pertains to financial years 2004-05 2005-06 is devoid of merits. Further, the assessee has written off 100% inventory of cotton held and the value of said inventory is very high. When the assessee is taking such a drastic decisions which impacts its financial decision, it needs to report to the concerned authorities and also required to take approval from the Board of Directors and audit committee. In this case, although assessee claims that it has reported inventory write off to the shareholders in published quarterly financial report, but the CIT(A) recorded categorical findings that similar statement is absent in the final accounts submitted to shareholders in the annual general body meeting. Further, there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
