2023 (3) TMI 278 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns Revenue's income addition, rules in favor of appellant

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the Revenue's addition of Rs. 1,35,43,034 as unexplained income was unwarranted. The Tribunal ... Bogus sales - unexplained cash deposits in bank account - estimation of income - no discrepancy in the statutory records noted - revenue suo-motto derived the figure of total cash sales, as recorded in cash-book vs. sale bills vs. stock register, by comparison with receding previous year's total cash sales - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, it is an undisputed fact that authorities below had accepted the opening stock, closing stock, purchases, direct expenses, sundry debtors, sundry creditors, all VAT 15 returns and annual VAT 20 of the assessee and did not point out any defect in any of the aforesaid documentary evidences. AR submitted that the assessee filed books of account, Stock Register and all other record for verification before the A.O and CIT(A) but they didn’t point out any defect in the said record. AO can't brush aside suo-motto statutory record of Sales-tax department like Vat-15 and vat-20 without pin pointing any defect in the said records. In fact, the Ld. A.O has calculated as bogus sales, on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He ought to have brought on record any material evidence to hold the disputed cash sales as bogus sale. A.O has accepted the GP ratio of assessee declared @ 4.38%. AO suo-moto reduced the GP of 4.38%, out of disputed bogus sales which has been reduced from the returned income - A.O cannot blow hot and cold at the same time by partly rejecting the books of accounts and partly accepted the books of accounts, which is bad-in-law. If the AO rejected the books of accounts, then he can't rely on the same books of accounts for opening stock, closing stock, purchases, sundry debtors, sundry creditors, GP Ratio and expenses etc. etc., which are based on same books of accounts which have been accepted. It is settled law that the A.O cannot sit on the chair of the assessee to decide the sales, as per his choice to categorize into so called bogus sales and non-bogus sale The Visakhapatanam Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Hirepanna Jewellers [2021 (5) TMI 447 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] has observed that when no difference in stock register found, purchases, sales and the stock are inter linked and are inseparable. Every purchase increases the stock and every sale decreases the stock and all matching with inflow and outflow there is no reason to disbelieve the sales. In the case of ‘PCIT vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd’,[2022 (1) TMI 848 - DELHI HIGH COURT]hold the rationale that one cannot disallow bogus purchases and the same time treats the sale with same parties as genuine - the books of accounts are duly audited and no defect found, then no disallowance. Thus we hold that the cash deposits in bank represent the sales which the assessee has rightly offered for taxation. We have gone through the trading account and find that there was sufficient stock to affect the sales and we do not find any defect in the stock as well as the sales. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 69A or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. Accordingly, the addition is deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues:- Discrepancy in statutory records for cash sales during demonetization period.- Addition of unexplained income by the Revenue.- Acceptance of opening stock, closing stock, purchases, and other records.- Calculation of bogus sales and rejection of books of accounts.- Application of sections 69A and 115BBE by the Revenue.- Partial acceptance and rejection of books of accounts.- GP ratio adjustment and rejection of books of accounts.- Categorization of sales as bogus or genuine.- Interlinking of stock, purchases, and sales.- Disallowance of bogus purchases while treating sales as genuine.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the Revenue's addition of Rs. 1,35,43,034 as unexplained income due to an alleged abnormal increase in cash sales during the demonetization period. The AO and CIT(A) did not find any discrepancy in the statutory records provided by the appellant, including VAT returns and audited books of accounts.2. The Revenue's calculation of bogus sales lacked tangible evidence and was based on surmises and conjectures. The AO's rejection of certain sales as unexplained income under sections 69A and 115BBE was deemed unjustified.3. Despite accepting various financial records like opening stock, closing stock, and purchases, the Revenue partially rejected the books of accounts, leading to inconsistencies in the assessment.4. The AO's alteration of the Trading A/c and rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) while still relying on certain aspects of the same books was deemed contradictory and legally flawed.5. Legal precedents highlighted that the Revenue cannot categorize sales as bogus without substantial evidence and must consider the interlinking of stock, purchases, and sales to determine the genuineness of transactions.6. The Tribunal concluded that the cash deposits in the bank represented legitimate sales offered for taxation by the appellant. Since no defects were found in the stock or sales records, the addition of Rs. 1,35,43,034 was deemed unwarranted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.