2017 (12) TMI 1523 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal partially allowed: excess stock, cash upheld, unexplained deposits dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, dismissing the addition related to unexplained cash deposits but allowing the appeal concerning excess stock and ... Unexplained cash deposits in the saving bank account of Shri Nisar Y. Mullam - Held that:- The authorities below have given a finding that Shri Nisar Y. Mulla was not assessed to Income Tax till the date of survey, PAN was allotted to him on 27-02-2009 i.e. after 17 days from the date of survey. The returns of income in respect of Shri Nisar Y. Mulla for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 were filed on 24-03-2009 i.e. after the date of survey. The ld. AR has not been able to controvert these finding of facts. Thus, this clearly indicates that the assessee has tried to create evidence to escape from the addition of amount deposited in the saving bank account of Shri Nisar Y. Mulla. Since, the assessee has failed to explain the amount deposited in the saving bank account of Shri Nisar Y. Mulla, addition of ₹ 5,55,549/- is sustained. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised in concise grounds of appeal by assessee is dismissed. Addition on account of excess stock and excess cash found during survey - Held that:- The assessee explained that at the time of survey the books of account were incomplete and certain entries were yet to be made in cash book. The assessee updated the books after survey. After completing the books and reconciliation it was found that there is no difference in cash. It is an undisputed fact that the Assessing Officer has not rejected books of assessee before making the additions. The assessee purportedly furnished bills of all the purchases and sales. It appears that the authorities below have not made any effort to examine the documents furnished by the assessee. Addition in respect of difference in cash has been made merely on the basis of statement of one of the partners of assessee firm. In respect of difference in stock, the Assessing Officer has not examined the stock register which was produced by the assessee subsequently. A perusal of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reveals that though the issue relating to addition of ₹ 16,49,960/- on account of excess stock was taken up for adjudication but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) left the issue in between without giving his findings. Taking into consideration the entirety of facts, we are of considered view that no addition in respect of difference in stock and cash is warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Addition of unexplained cash deposits in a saving bank account.2. Addition of excess stock and excess cash found during survey.Issue 1: Addition of unexplained cash deposits in a saving bank account:The appeal was against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in trading and a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 revealed discrepancies. The partner, in his statement, disclosed differences in cash, stock, and amount deposited in a bank account. The Assessing Officer made additions based on these disclosures. The assessee contended that statements under section 133A have no evidentiary value. The assessee produced purchase registers and bills to explain the differences. The Department argued that the partner's statement was made in the presence of a Chartered Accountant and retraction after two months was an afterthought. The Tribunal found that the amount deposited in the bank account belonged to the assessee and upheld the addition.Issue 2: Addition of excess stock and excess cash found during survey:The Assessing Officer added amounts for excess stock and cash found during the survey. The assessee explained that incomplete books at the time of the survey were updated later, showing no difference in cash. The Assessing Officer did not reject the books or examine the stock register produced later. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not provide findings on the excess stock issue. The Tribunal held that no addition for differences in stock and cash was warranted as the authorities did not adequately examine the documents furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, dismissing the addition related to the unexplained cash deposits but allowing the appeal concerning excess stock and cash found during the survey.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, dismissing the addition related to unexplained cash deposits but allowing the appeal concerning excess stock and cash found during the survey.