2024 (2) TMI 214 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's appeal dismissed for excess stock assessment using arbitrary profit rate without physical verification or evidence

The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding excess stock assessment under section 69A. The Survey Team calculated excess stock by applying a ... Excess stock u/s 69A - GP estimation - basis of calculating G.P. - difference in closing stock as per the trading account and stock statement taken from SAP Software - survey team had taken G.P of previous year - CIT(A) allowing the appeal of the assessee stating that basis of calculating G.P. was not mentioned by the survey team - HELD THAT:- Now without making any efforts to verify the stock in physical form by making any inventory or other mode and without finding any incriminating evidences showing that the stock reflected was manipulated and not accounted in due course of business, the Survey Team on the basis of applying gross profit of 25.74% recomputed the trading account and arrived at a closing stock figure. Learned CIT(A) has duly appreciated this arbitrary manner of valuing the stock. CIT(A) has duly appreciated that at one hand the G.P. rate of 24.16% has been accepted as per the return of income and without any reasonable basis for the purpose of revaluation of stock trading account, the G.P. of 25.74% has been adopted. Thus, there is no error in the finding of learned CIT(A). Even otherwise, the addition was made by learned AO u/s 69A of the Act, which is a deeming income provision, for which there should be specific evidence of ownership of something in the nature of money, bullion and jewellery or other valuable article. Certainly, the AO intended to make addition covering the excess stock under the phrase “other valuable article” and for which without any physical verification and identification of the stock in physical form, apart from the business of the assessee and attributing ownership of the same to the assessee, recourse to section 69A could not have been taken. To make such an addition u/s 69A, for such excess stock, if any, same should be separately identifiable and there should be specific allegation and evidence that this stock has no nexus with the stock otherwise found at the assessee’s business. Same is not the case here. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Issues involved: The appeal against the order dated 28.07.2022 for the assessment year 2019-20, involving the addition of excess stock amount by the AO under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and subsequent deletion of the same by the CIT(A) is being contested.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Addition of excess stock amount by AO under section 69A:The assessee, engaged in the distribution of technology products, faced an addition of Rs. 5,23,93,246/- to its income by the AO based on the difference in closing stock as per the trading account and stock statement from SAP Software. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, highlighting discrepancies in the valuation process by the survey team and lack of proper explanation by the AO. The CIT(A) emphasized that the stock details provided by the assessee were not doubted, and no physical verification discrepancies were found. The AO's reliance on estimated GP rates without valid reasoning was also questioned. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the absence of concrete evidence to support the addition under section 69A.Issue 2: Grounds raised by the Revenue in appeal:The Revenue raised several grounds in appeal, questioning the CIT(A)'s decision and the valuation process of the stock. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments, emphasizing the adequacy of the explanations provided by the assessee and the lack of tangible evidence to support the addition under section 69A. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of excess stock amount, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.This judgment revolves around the dispute regarding the addition of excess stock amount by the AO under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and its subsequent deletion by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the facts and submissions, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, highlighting the lack of concrete evidence to justify the addition and the discrepancies in the valuation process.