2021 (7) TMI 747 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds ITAT decision on stock discrepancy & scrap value deletions, emphasizing substantial legal issues.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VADODARA 3 Versus M/s BELL CERAMICS LTD.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision regarding the deletion of additions for stock discrepancy and estimated scrap value, despite acknowledging the ... Addition on account of discrepancy in stock and being estimated value of scrap - HELD THAT:- A clear that on the basis of the findings recorded by the ITAT for the A.Y. 2005-06, in the earlier part of the impugned order, it has dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 2006-07. It has been observed by the ITAT that the addition with regard to the value of discrepancy of stock by the Assessing Officer was based on the arithmetic calculation and conversion of stock maintained in Metric tonne into sq. mtrs. and therefore there has to be variation in the working of the assessee, which was filed as the Assessing Officer wanted the same in a particular format. It has been further observed by the ITAT that the Assessing Officer has not brought out any defects in maintenance of books of accounts and therefore, mere arithmetic calculation made is not suffice for making addition. It is true that the reasons given in impugned order passed by the Tribunal are not happily worded and the order could have been passed using better and accurate language, nonetheless the findings recorded by the ITAT being findings of fact, the appeal cannot be entertained in absence of any substantial question of law being involved in the same. It may be noted that the Appeal under Section 260A could be admitted only on the High Court being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Issues Involved:1. Whether the impugned order of the ITAT is erroneous, illegal, and non-speaking due to lack of independent reasons for confirming the deletion of the addition on account of stock discrepancy and estimated scrap value.2. Whether the ITAT committed a gross error of law by following its decision for A.Y. 2003-04 in the assessee's case, despite no such revenue appeal being decided for A.Y. 2003-04.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Erroneous, Illegal, and Non-Speaking Order by ITAT:The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vadodara-3, challenged the ITAT's order dated 30.09.2019 regarding the deletion of Rs. 4,09,60,104/- for stock discrepancy and Rs. 4,07,214/- for the estimated value of scrap. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially added these amounts to the total stock based on discrepancies between the consumption of raw materials as per the tax audit report and the working submitted during assessment proceedings. The AO considered various losses during manufacturing but found significant discrepancies after accounting for wastage.The CIT(Appeals) deleted these additions, referencing a similar decision for A.Y. 2003-04 where identical issues were resolved in favor of the assessee. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, stating that the facts were similar to those in A.Y. 2005-06 and 2003-04, thus applying the same findings.2. Gross Error of Law by ITAT:The appellant argued that the ITAT erred in applying findings from A.Y. 2003-04, as no revenue appeal for that year was decided in the impugned order. The ITAT's reference to A.Y. 2003-04 was incorrect since the appeal for that year was dismissed due to low tax effect. However, the ITAT also relied on findings from A.Y. 2005-06, which involved similar issues of stock discrepancy and estimated scrap value.The ITAT noted that the AO's addition was based on arithmetic calculations and conversion of stock from metric tonnes to square meters, without identifying defects in the maintenance of books of accounts. The mere arithmetic calculation was deemed insufficient for making the addition.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the ITAT's findings, despite not being well-articulated, were factual and did not involve a substantial question of law. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, requires a substantial question of law, which was not present in this case. The Supreme Court's precedents emphasize that an appeal under Section 260A should involve a substantial question of law, affecting substantial rights, being of general public importance, or involving unsettled legal issues.The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the ITAT's order, although not perfectly worded, was based on factual findings and did not warrant interference. The decision adhered to the principle that findings of fact by the Tribunal cannot be disturbed unless a substantial question of law is involved.