Embedded profit only in stock discrepancies; conjectural decimal extrapolation and peak-based additions cannot be sustained in full.

Survey-based stock discrepancy was not treated as full unexplained income because the material did not establish actual excess stock or suppressed sales outside the books; only the profit element embedded in the disputed stock difference was brought to tax by applying a reasonable gross profit rate. Additions derived from impounded material and alleged decimal manipulation were also not sustained in full, as the extrapolated figure rested on surmises rather than reliable evidence. The large decimal-based addition was deleted, while the remaining connected additions were confined to amounts supported by the cash-flow statement and established profit element, resulting in partial relief and partial sustainment of the connected adjustments.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition on account of alleged discrepancy in closing stock for the relevant year was sustainable in full or only to the extent of gross profit embedded in the difference. (ii) Whether the additions made on the basis of impounded material and alleged decimal manipulation were sustainable in full, and whether the related peak and cash-flow additions could be retained.

Issue (i): Whether the addition on account of alleged discrepancy in closing stock for the relevant year was sustainable in full or only to the extent of gross profit embedded in the difference.

Analysis: The closing stock shown in the audited accounts and the figure emerging from the survey printouts did not reconcile. However, the survey did not establish actual excess stock over and above the stock recorded in the audited books, nor did it yield cash or receivables showing suppressed sales outside the books. In these circumstances, the full stock difference could not be treated as income. The proper approach was to tax only the profit element embedded in the alleged stock difference by applying a reasonable gross profit rate.

Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable in full and was restricted to gross profit at 3.42% of the disputed stock difference; relief was granted to the assessee on the balance.

Issue (ii): Whether the additions made on the basis of impounded material and alleged decimal manipulation were sustainable in full, and whether the related peak and cash-flow additions could be retained.

Analysis: The Revenue's addition of the entire amount worked out by extrapolating figures by two decimal places was found to rest on surmises and presumptions. The impounded material supported the existence of some unaccounted transactions, but the peak theory applied by both sides was not fully reliable in the form used. The appellate authority was justified in deleting the large addition based on the decimal extrapolation, while the remaining additions had to be confined to the amounts supported by the chronological cash-flow statement and the established profit element from unaccounted dealings. The separate additions on account of opening balance and related cash-flow items were partly unsustainable, though one component of the peak-based addition was retained.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to deletion of the large addition failed, while the assessee succeeded in part and failed in part on the connected additions from the impounded material.

Final Conclusion: The stock discrepancy was taxed only to the extent of embedded profit, the large decimal-based addition was deleted, and the remaining connected additions were adjusted so that the appeals ended in partial relief for the assessee and dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where survey material does not establish actual excess stock or a reliable basis for full extrapolation, only the profit element embedded in the disputed turnover or stock difference can be brought to tax, and additions based purely on conjectural peak calculations or presumptive decimal manipulation cannot be sustained in full.

---