1973 (3) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds addition to income for discrepancies in stock declarations vs. books of account

Coimbatore Spinning And Weaving Co. Limited Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax.

The High Court affirmed the addition of Rs. 2,30,000 to the assessee's income, finding justification in discrepancies between stock declarations and books ... Stocks are inflated in the statements given to bank for obtaining overdraft and loan facilities - whether rejection of accounts and estimation of income would be justified - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 2,30,000 to the income returned by the assessee is justified Issues Involved:1. Justification for the addition of Rs. 2,30,000 to the income returned by the assessee.2. Discrepancies in stock declarations to banks versus books of account.3. Rejection of the assessee's books of account.4. Treatment of excess stocks as undisclosed income.5. Burden of proof regarding the nature of excess stocks.Detailed Analysis:1. Justification for the Addition of Rs. 2,30,000:The central issue was whether the addition of Rs. 2,30,000 to the income returned by the assessee was justified. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) found discrepancies between the stocks of cotton as per the assessee's books and those declared to the banks. The ITO rejected the book results and added Rs. 5,00,000 towards the deficiency in gross profit. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) reduced this addition to Rs. 3,55,000, and the Tribunal further reduced it to Rs. 3,30,000, primarily focusing on the value of suppressed cotton stocks.2. Discrepancies in Stock Declarations:The ITO noted that the assessee had declared inflated stock figures to banks to obtain higher loan facilities. The discrepancies were significant, with the stock declarations showing larger quantities of certain types of cotton than those recorded in the books. The assessee argued that it was common practice to inflate stock figures for obtaining loans, but the Tribunal did not accept this explanation, emphasizing the fiduciary responsibility of the assessee in declaring accurate stock figures to banks.3. Rejection of the Assessee's Books of Account:The ITO and the AAC both rejected the assessee's books of account due to various discrepancies, including unverifiable purchases and inflated wages. The Tribunal upheld this rejection, noting that the discrepancies indicated a lack of reliability in the books of account. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden was on the assessee to prove that the books were accurate, especially when confronted with contradictory sworn statements given to banks.4. Treatment of Excess Stocks as Undisclosed Income:The Tribunal concluded that the excess stocks declared to the banks but not recorded in the books should be treated as undisclosed income. The assessee's explanation that the inflated stock figures were for obtaining higher loans was not accepted. The Tribunal held that the practice of inflating stock figures for loans, even if it existed, could not be judicially recognized to allow the assessee to retract sworn statements made to banks.5. Burden of Proof:The Tribunal placed the burden of proof on the assessee to demonstrate that the books of account were accurate and the stock declarations to banks were not. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to meet this burden. The court cited precedents emphasizing that once an assessee's explanation is rejected, the excess stocks can be inferred to represent undisclosed income. The Tribunal's finding that the excess stocks were not accounted for in the books was upheld, and the addition to the income was deemed justified.Conclusion:The High Court answered the reference in the affirmative, holding that the addition of Rs. 2,30,000 to the income returned by the assessee was justified. The court emphasized that the discrepancies in stock declarations and the rejection of the books of account warranted the addition. The Tribunal's decision to treat the excess stocks as undisclosed income was upheld, and the burden of proof lay with the assessee to demonstrate the accuracy of their books, which they failed to do. The revenue was awarded costs, and the reference was answered against the assessee.