2024 (9) TMI 1657 - AT - Income Tax

Section 115BBE doesn't apply to excess stock found during survey when income properly explained through business operations

The DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharashtra Versus Vaishali Agro Soya Products

The DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharashtra Versus Vaishali Agro Soya Products - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the tax calculated on special rates under section 69B read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act on the declaration of excess stock.2. Whether the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the excess stock resulted from unrecorded purchases.3. Whether the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not explain the nature and source of income for unrecorded purchases, resulting in excess stock.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Tax Calculated on Special Rates:The primary issue is whether the CIT(A) erred in law and facts by deleting the tax calculated on special rates as per the provisions of section 69B read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act on the declaration of Rs. 7,00,00,100/- as excess stock. The CIT(A) had reversed the assessment findings, which assessed the unaccounted stock under section 69B at a higher rate under section 115BBE. The appellant argued that the excess stock found during the survey was due to discrepancies in stock maintenance and valuation, with no incriminating evidence of unrecorded sales or purchases. The appellant declared the amount as deemed income to maintain peace of mind, and the CIT(A) held that the additional income was part of business activities, thus not subject to section 115BBE.2. Excess Stock Resulting from Unrecorded Purchases:The Revenue contended that the excess stock was due to unrecorded purchases, which the CIT(A) allegedly failed to appreciate. However, the CIT(A) considered that the appellant's books of accounts were not finalized at the time of the survey, and the discrepancies were covered by the declared additional income. The appellant maintained that the excess stock was part of regular business activities, and the CIT(A) found no evidence to support the Revenue's claim of unrecorded purchases leading to the excess stock.3. Explanation of Nature and Source of Income:The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of income used for unrecorded purchases, resulting in excess stock. The CIT(A) noted that no specific questions were asked during the survey or assessment proceedings to substantiate the manner in which the income was derived. The appellant had declared the additional income as part of business income, and the CIT(A) found that the appellant satisfactorily explained the source of income, which was related to regular business activities.Conclusion:The tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, supporting the CIT(A)'s decision to reverse the Assessing Officer's action of taxing the income under section 69B read with section 115BBE. The tribunal referenced previous case law, including the decision in Ashok Kumar Kesherchand Pande vs. ACIT, where it was held that additional income declared during survey proceedings and credited to business accounts should not be taxed under section 115BBE. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the additional income was derived from regular business activities and should be taxed under the normal rate of income tax.