2025 (6) TMI 952 - AT - Income Tax

Audited Books Prevail: Bank Credit Statement Cannot Automatically Trigger Unexplained Income Under Section 69

Raj Kumar Puglia Versus ITO, Ward - 3 (4), West Bengal

Raj Kumar Puglia Versus ITO, Ward - 3 (4), West Bengal - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) was whether the addition of Rs. 12,10,038/- to the assessee's income on account of the difference between the stock figures disclosed in the audited books of accounts and the stock figures furnished in the hypothecation statement to the bank for securing a cash credit limit was justified. Specifically, the Tribunal examined:Whether the excess stock shown in the hypothecation statement submitted to the bank can be treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the basis of the discrepancy between the audited stock and the hypothecation stock was sustainable.Whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proof to disprove the AO's claim of excess stock and justify the difference in stock figures.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue: Legitimacy of addition on account of difference between stock figures in audited books and hypothecation statement submitted to the bankRelevant legal framework and precedents: The addition was made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which deals with unexplained investments. Section 69 permits the Assessing Officer to treat any unexplained investment as income of the assessee if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of such investment. The AO relied on the difference between the stock figures in the audited books and the hypothecation statement submitted to the bank as evidence of unexplained investment.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the stock figures as per the audited books of accounts had been subjected to statutory audit and were duly reflected in the audited financial statements. The hypothecation statement was prepared and submitted by the assessee to the bank for the purpose of securing a cash credit limit. The Tribunal found that the excess stock shown in the hypothecation statement was not corroborated by the books of accounts or physical stock verification.The Tribunal reasoned that the practice of inflating stock figures in the hypothecation statement was primarily aimed at securing a higher credit limit from the bank rather than reflecting actual stock held. Therefore, the difference in stock figures between the audited accounts and the hypothecation statement could not be treated as unexplained investment under section 69.Key evidence and findings: The AO had issued notice under section 133(6) to the bank to furnish details of securities pledged by the assessee for the cash credit facility. The bank provided the hypothecation statement and bank statements, which revealed a stock figure higher by Rs. 12,10,038/- compared to the audited accounts. However, the audited accounts, which had undergone statutory audit, did not support this excess stock figure.Application of law to facts: Since the audited books of accounts were accepted and the excess stock figure was only reflected in the hypothecation statement prepared for the bank, the Tribunal held that the addition under section 69 was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of inflated hypothecation stock figures submitted to the bank, especially when the audited accounts are consistent and reliable.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the difference in stock figures represented an unexplained investment and justified addition under section 69. The assessee argued that the audited accounts were correct and the difference arose due to inflated figures submitted to the bank solely for securing higher credit limits. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, finding no evidence that the excess stock was genuine or that it was held by the assessee.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 12,10,038/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held:'Primarily in order to secure higher credit limit from the bank this type of practice is adopted by the assessee only to secure the higher credit facilities from the bank. Whereas, as a matter of fact the stock actually available in the books of accounts as well as physically are different from that. Therefore, the additions cannot be made on the basis of hypothecation stock figures which were given by the assessee just for securing higher credit limits from the bank.'Core principles established include:Stock figures submitted to banks for securing credit facilities cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of actual stock held if contradicted by audited books of accounts and physical verification.Additions under section 69 require that the investment or asset in question be unexplained and genuine; mere discrepancies in documentation aimed at securing financial facilities do not amount to unexplained investment.The burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the excess stock is genuine and unexplained; where the audited accounts are consistent and duly audited, reliance on inflated hypothecation statements is misplaced.The final determination was that the addition of Rs. 12,10,038/- was deleted and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.