2016 (10) TMI 582 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal upholds deletion of undisclosed sales addition, partially allows appeal on depreciation issue.

ITO Ward-7 (3), P-7, Kolkata Versus M/s Shree Banke Behari Enterprises Pvt. Ltd

ITO Ward-7 (3), P-7, Kolkata Versus M/s Shree Banke Behari Enterprises Pvt. Ltd - TMI Issues involved:1. Valuation of closing stock under section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Addition of undisclosed sales amount.3. Deletion of depreciation on ownership flat and ownership shop.Detailed Analysis:1. Valuation of closing stock under section 145:The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of undisclosed sales amounting to Rs. 30,07,993. The AO applied the average pricing method to determine the value of closing stock due to the qualitative analysis of stock not being furnished by the assessee. The AO found a discrepancy in the closing stock quantity, leading to the conclusion of undisclosed sales. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, stating that the method of valuation adopted by the assessee was consistent and no actual defect was found in the valuation. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO made the addition based on surmise and conjecture without pointing out any defects in the audited financial statement, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.2. Addition of undisclosed sales amount:The AO added Rs. 30,07,993 to the assessee's income as undisclosed sales due to a discrepancy in the closing stock quantity. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, emphasizing the consistency in the valuation method adopted by the assessee and the absence of defects in the valuation process. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's addition lacked a factual basis and was made without identifying any defects in the submitted financial statements.3. Deletion of depreciation on ownership flat and ownership shop:The AO disallowed depreciation claimed by the assessee on an ownership flat and an ownership shop, citing missing details in the Tax Audit Report. The AO assumed one-third of the property cost as land cost and disallowed proportionate depreciation. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that there was no material to support the AO's assumption regarding land cost. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the AO relied on specific judgments to disallow depreciation, but the facts in those cases differed from the present case. The Tribunal directed the issue to be restored to the AO for verification of the composite payment made by the assessee for the properties, with the possibility of allowing depreciation if a composite payment was indeed made.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes regarding the issue of depreciation on the ownership flat and ownership shop, directing further verification by the AO.