Assessee's Appeal Dismissed for A.Y. 2003-04, Revenue's Partial Success, A.Y. 2005-06 Appeal Dismissed

The assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 was dismissed. The revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 was partly allowed, and the appeal for A.Y. 2005-06 was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 50,92,440/- on account of confiscation of stocks.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 18,47,381/- based on profit on sale outside books.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 24,39,059/- on account of unexplained investment in unrecorded stock.
4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 18,96,399/- on account of disallowance of depreciation.
5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 20,22,852/- under Section 43B on account of penal interest and interest payable to bank.
6. Annulment of assessment order for A.Y. 2005-06 due to improper service of notice under Section 143(2).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 50,92,440/- on account of confiscation of stocks:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 50,92,440/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) for the confiscation of stocks by the District Authorities against dues of KESCO. The A.O. noted discrepancies in the stock records and the lack of evidence to support the claim that the entire stock was seized and auctioned for Rs. 2.03 Lacs. The CIT (A) upheld the addition, stating that the stock remained the property of the assessee and the right to it did not transfer with mere possession change. The Tribunal found no convincing evidence from the assessee to prove the entire stock was auctioned for Rs. 2.03 Lacs and upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 18,47,381/- based on profit on sale outside books:
The revenue's appeal contested the deletion of Rs. 18,47,381/- added by the A.O. based on the profit from the sale outside books, inferred from discrepancies in the stock statements submitted to the bank. The CIT (A) relied on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Khan & Sirohi Steel Rolling Mills, which favored the assessee. The Tribunal found no difference in facts from the cited case and upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, rejecting the revenue's grounds.

3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 24,39,059/- on account of unexplained investment in unrecorded stock:
The revenue's appeal also challenged the deletion of Rs. 24,39,059/- added by the A.O. for unexplained investment in unrecorded stock. The CIT (A) found that the stock statement submitted to the bank almost tallied with the books of accounts and no adverse evidence was presented by the A.O. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s findings, noting the reliance on the same High Court judgment, and rejected the revenue's grounds.

4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 18,96,399/- on account of disallowance of depreciation:
The revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 18,96,399/- disallowed by the A.O. for depreciation on plant and machinery not put to use. The CIT (A) relied on several judgments, including CIT vs. Swaroop Vegetable Products India Ltd., to allow the depreciation. The Tribunal, however, found that none of the cited judgments applied to the present case's facts, as the industrial unit was not operational and no evidence was provided to show the machinery was ready for use. The Tribunal reversed the CIT (A)'s decision and restored the A.O.'s addition.

5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 20,22,852/- under Section 43B on account of penal interest and interest payable to bank:
The revenue's appeal contested the deletion of Rs. 20,22,852/- added by the A.O. under Section 43B for interest payable on cash credit and penal interest. The CIT (A) found that Section 43B did not cover interest on cash credit in the relevant year and that the penal interest was for contractual contravention, not legal infraction. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT (A)'s findings and rejected the revenue's grounds.

6. Annulment of assessment order for A.Y. 2005-06 due to improper service of notice under Section 143(2):
The revenue's appeal challenged the annulment of the assessment order for A.Y. 2005-06, arguing that the notice under Section 143(2) was served within time. The CIT (A) found that the notice was not validly served as it was received by unauthorized persons. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, referencing a tribunal order in Anil Kumar Goel vs. ITO, and found no infirmity in annulling the assessment order due to improper service of notice.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 was dismissed. The revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 was partly allowed, and the appeal for A.Y. 2005-06 was dismissed.

---