2017 (9) TMI 1525 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal reduces stock, debtors, property, cash additions; deletes lottery investment addition. Appeals dismissed.

M.D. Garg & Sons, HUF, Prop. M/s M.S. Jewellers Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, ITO, Ward-2 (1), Alwar

M.D. Garg & Sons, HUF, Prop. M/s M.S. Jewellers Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, ITO, Ward-2 (1), Alwar - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Addition on account of excess stock.2. Addition on account of unrecorded debtors.3. Addition on account of investment in immovable property.4. Addition on account of excess cash.5. Addition on account of unexplained investment in lottery.Detailed Analysis:1. Addition on Account of Excess StockAssessee's Argument: The assessee contended that the addition of Rs. 80,17,040/- based on excess stock was erroneous as it was derived from incomplete books during the survey. The statement by Shri Deepak Garg was invalid, and the updated books showed no discrepancy.CIT(A) Findings: The CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 12,19,569/- after considering the updated books and purchase vouchers. The remaining addition was due to differences in the valuation of gold and silver ornaments and unexplained precious stones.Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the updated stock register and audited books showed no significant discrepancies. The addition of Rs. 12,19,569/- was sustained.2. Addition on Account of Unrecorded DebtorsAssessee's Argument: The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 15,01,327/- was incorrect as the debtors were recorded in the updated books, and the lump sum addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- was baseless.CIT(A) Findings: The CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 72,702/-, calculating the unaccounted profit on unrecorded sales based on a gross profit rate of 15%, adjusted for the declared rate of 9.19%.Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s method of estimating the profit and sustained the addition of Rs. 72,702/-.3. Addition on Account of Investment in Immovable PropertyAssessee's Argument: The assessee claimed that the addition of Rs. 7,13,000/- was based on an invalid statement and unsupported by material evidence.CIT(A) Findings: The CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 4,00,000/-, considering only the unexplained investment noted in the survey documents.Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to explain the investment of Rs. 4,00,000/-.4. Addition on Account of Excess CashAssessee's Argument: The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 48,700/- was incorrect as the books were incomplete during the survey, and the updated books showed a cash balance close to the surveyed amount.CIT(A) Findings: The CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 876/-, aligning the cash balance with the updated books.Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal sustained the CIT(A)'s finding, noting no significant discrepancy in the cash balance.5. Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in LotteryAssessee's Argument: The assessee contended that the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- was incorrect as the investment was declared by Shri Deepak Garg in his individual capacity.CIT(A) Findings: The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting that the income from the lottery was declared by Shri Deepak Garg.Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the deletion, agreeing that the investment was disclosed by Shri Deepak Garg.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals from both sides, sustaining the CIT(A)'s partial reliefs and deletions. The detailed analysis of each issue showed that the CIT(A)'s decisions were based on thorough examination and proper application of legal principles. The Tribunal found no merit in the grounds raised by either party against the CIT(A)'s findings.