2019 (7) TMI 1269 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal partially allows appeal, reduces additions for undervaluation, and expenses

Mahashakti Engineering Co., C/o Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Versus DCIT, Circle-21 (1), New Delhi.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, deleting additions for undervaluation of closing stock, finished goods, and scrap. The lump sum addition for ... Addition on a/c of under valuation of closing stock - valuation of closing stock of raw material, finished goods and scrap - invoices of raw material are booked in the end of year against the material recd - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, no defect has been pointed out by the AO in the books of account except doubting the valuation of closing stock. We find the VAT authorities have scrutinized the records and have accepted the purchase, sales and closing stock without any mistake. The rate of net profit declared by the assessee at 2.43% for the impugned assessment year is higher than the rate of net profit declared in the immediately preceding four years. Further assessee during the course of hearing had demonstrated before us that the goods were received through challans earlier whereas the invoices were raised later and were entered in the books of account. Since AO in the instant case has not made any adjustment to the opening stock of the subsequent year and for assessment year 2012-13, no addition has been made in the order passed u/s 143(3) and the books of account were never rejected, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned addition should not have been made on account of valuation of closing stock. We further find merit in the argument of the ld. counsel that when the profit of the subsequent year is higher than the profit of the current year, there was no point on the part of the assessee to suppress its valuation of closing stock which would have become opening stock of the subsequent year. We also find merit in the argument of the ld. counsel that considering the size of business of the assessee it is not possible to receive 20% of the material in five days as against 80% of material in the whole year. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 69,01,453/- on account of undervaluation of closing stock. Following the same reasoning, the addition of ₹ 91,963/- on account of finished stock is also deleted. Addition on account of valuation of scrap - we find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee, namely, M/s Mahashakti Machines Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 1509 - ITAT DELHI] wherein the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee, we delete the addition on account of valuation of scrap. Grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 of the assessee are accordingly allowed. Addition of various expenses on ad hoc basis - some of the vouchers are improper and some of the expenses are unvouched - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the accounts of the assessee are audited and no defects are pointed out either by the auditors or the Revenue. We find the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount on estimate basis on the ground that the vouchers are improper or unvouched. When the vouchers are either not available or improper, the expenses cannot be allowed. It is the settled proposition of law that for allowing any expenditure the onus is always on the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the AO regarding the allowability of such expenditure. Since, in the instant case, the assessee failed to satisfy the AO with proper vouchers, therefore, disallowance of expenses on estimate basis is justified. However, the disallowance appears to be on the higher side. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that an addition of ₹ 50,000/- on ad hoc basis under the facts and circumstances of the case will meet the ends of justice. Issues Involved:1. Addition on account of undervaluation of closing stock.2. Addition on account of valuation of finished goods.3. Addition on account of valuation of scrap.4. Lump sum addition out of various expenses.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition on account of undervaluation of closing stock:The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing sugar mill machinery, was found to have undervalued its closing stock by Rs. 69,01,453/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that purchases made after the last sale on 25th March 2009 were not included in the closing stock. The AO added the value of these purchases to the closing stock. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims with documentary evidence. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee maintained proper excise registers and that the VAT authorities had accepted the purchase, sales, and closing stock without any discrepancies. The Tribunal also noted that the net profit rate for the year in question was higher than in previous years and that no addition was made for the subsequent year’s closing stock. Thus, the Tribunal deleted the addition, emphasizing that no defect was pointed out in the books of accounts.2. Addition on account of valuation of finished goods:The AO made an addition of Rs. 91,963/- for undervaluation of finished goods. The assessee argued that no addition could be made to the closing stock without adjusting the opening stock, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Dynavision Ltd. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the books of accounts were not rejected and that the VAT authorities had accepted the figures. The Tribunal deleted this addition as well.3. Addition on account of valuation of scrap:The AO added Rs. 4,97,322/- for undervaluation of scrap, claiming that 70% of the scrap was raw material and should be valued at Rs. 30 per kg. The assessee argued that the scrap was reusable and accumulated for future use. The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving the assessee's sister concern, where the addition was deleted due to a lack of evidence for excess scrap generation. Following this precedent, the Tribunal deleted the addition for scrap valuation.4. Lump sum addition out of various expenses:The AO made a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,29,551/- out of various expenses on an ad hoc basis, citing improper or unvouched vouchers. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee's accounts were audited and no defects were pointed out, the disallowance was justified due to the lack of proper vouchers. However, the Tribunal found the disallowance to be on the higher side and reduced it to Rs. 50,000/-.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, deleting the additions related to the undervaluation of closing stock, finished goods, and scrap, while reducing the lump sum addition for various expenses to Rs. 50,000/-. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2019.