2013 (10) TMI 157 - HC - Income Tax

Court affirms Rs. 29.50 lakhs addition under Income Tax Act, citing stock valuation discrepancies.

The court upheld the addition of Rs. 29.50 lakhs under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, rejecting the appellant's challenge based on discrepancies in ... Additions made u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act - excess stock found during survey - assessee contended that as per the books during the course of survey was without the opening stock. Since the computer programme had some problem at the time of survey, it had given wrong figure – Held that:- Said letter does not throw any light other than suggesting that due to computer error, the opening stock was not included in the stock statement - Assessee was maintaining accounts not only in the computer but also manually. Nowhere in such manually maintained accounts also such discrepancy was brought on record - In presence of the assessee, the survey party had carried out physical stock taking. Valuation thereof and method of computation of valuation has never been in dispute either before the Revenue authorities or before this court - Even after taking into consideration such opening stock, admittedly, there was discrepancy in the physical stock found at the time of survey, even as per the assessee, to the tune of Rs. 11 lakhs – Decided against the Assessee. Issues:1. Addition made under section 69B of the Income Tax Act.2. Discrepancy in stock valuation during survey operation.3. Reconciliation of stock figures and evidence presented by the assessee.Issue 1: Addition made under section 69B of the Income Tax Act:The appellant, engaged in the trading business, challenged the addition of Rs. 29.50 lakhs under section 69B. The Assessing Officer found excess stock during a survey operation and the appellant agreed to the computation but later raised concerns about the computer-generated stock statement. The disputed undated letter and additional documents were presented by the assessee to support their claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition, stating that the appellant failed to reconcile the stock differences adequately. The Tribunal also refused to interfere, emphasizing that the stock valuation was done on the premises of the assessee and the undated communication lacked credibility.Issue 2: Discrepancy in stock valuation during survey operation:The core issue revolved around the disputed undated letter by the assessee, claiming that the computer-generated stock record omitted the opening stock, leading to an inflated excess stock figure. The Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and confirmed the addition. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld the decision, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim and the failure to reconcile the discrepancies effectively. The Tribunal stressed the credibility of the stock valuation process conducted at the assessee's premises.Issue 3: Reconciliation of stock figures and evidence presented by the assessee:The appellant contended that the undated letter was submitted before the assessment was completed, and if the opening stock had been considered, the excess stock amount would have been lower. The appellant argued that the authorities erred in disregarding the reconciliation presented in the letter. However, the court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate any serious error in the computer-generated stock statement. Despite the appellant's claims of a computer error, no discrepancies were found in the manually maintained accounts. The court agreed with the Revenue authorities that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support the theory of the opening stock omission, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to substantiate the alleged errors in the stock valuation process, and no legal question arose from the case.