Shri Rohini Garg, Dewas V. ITO,W.-2,Dewas, Dewas

ITA 177/Ind/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9303 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA No.177/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Rohini Garg Dewas PAN No.AGWPG2509G : Appellant V/s ITO ward-2 Dewas : Respondent Appellant by Shri Ram Gilda, AR Respondent by Shri Amit Soni, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 .02.2022 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short CIT(A), Ujjain dated 13.01.2020 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 28.03.2016 by DCIT-Ratlam. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in: Smt. Rohini Garg ITA No.177/Ind/2020 2 “1. That the authorities below have grossly erred in making and sustaining addition of Rs.2,47,561/- without considering the facts and documents filed. 2. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter amend and/or withdraw any grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. 2. Sole issue raised in this appeal is against the addition of Rs.2,47,561/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) which was made by the ld. AO towards excess stock. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assesse is an individual engaged trading of cement, building material, stone crushing & cutting etc. Survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out on 12.10.2012. Additional income of Rs.40,20,350/- offered for tax which included excess stock of Rs. 2,45,761/-. E- return of income filed on 30.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 26,71,850/- without including excess stock found during survey. Case of the assessee selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Various details were called for by the Ld. AO and the same were filed by the assessee. Assessment completed at income of Rs.48,25,661/- after making addition towards excess stock found during the survey at Rs.2,47,561/- and undisclosed investment in hotel building at Rs.19,06,250/-. 4. Assessee challenged these addition before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Now the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal challenging the finding of Ld. CIT(A) solely on the issue of Smt. Rohini Garg ITA No.177/Ind/2020 3 confirming addition for excess stock found during the course of survey at Rs.2,47,561/-. 5. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the submissions and paper book containing 31 pages filed on 11.01.2002. 6. Per contra ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of both lower authorities. 7. We have heard rival contentions, perused the records placed before us. Sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition for excess stock of Rs.2,47,561/- found during the course of survey carried out at the assessee’s business premises on 12.10.2012. We notice that the stock as per books on the date of survey at Rs.87,93,737/- and the stock calculated by the survey team was Rs.90,41,298/-. Difference of Rs.2,47,561/- has been treated as excess stock. Subsequent to survey when the assessee filed return he did not offer the excess stock to tax of Rs.2,47,561/- stating to be an apparent mistake in the stock statement prepared by the survey team. 8. On perusal of the submissions and stock statements it is noticed that some items of stock has been taken twice and thrice by the survey team (as appearing in the paper book page no. 1 to 10) which resulted in the increase in value of stock by Rs.11,33,720/- comprising of three amounts Rs.42,3120/- Rs.486200/- and Rs.224400/- (PAPER BOOK page 1) One more important fact is that certain stock of the appellant valuing at Rs. 10,19,461/- was left to be taken and not added in Smt. Rohini Garg ITA No.177/Ind/2020 4 the stock during the survey. Rather it was added in the stock of another assessee namely Neeraj Garg. In the case of Neeraj Garg this issue of addition of Rs.10,19,461/- travelled up to this tribunal and vide order dated 12.07.2017 in ITANo.1340/Ind/2016, the assessment made by the Ld. AO was set aside for examining this issue afresh. In compliance to the directions of this tribunal, Ld. AO carried out the assessment proceedings again and vide order dated 11.04.2018 for A.Y. 2013- 14 in the case of Neeraj Garg, addition for alleged stock of Rs.10,19,461/- was not made. 9. Now if the stock of Rs.10,19,461/- is again added to the stock found during the course of survey and Rs.11,33,720/- is deducted being excess stock calculated by survey team, difference arriving would be hardly Rs.1,33,202/- which is 1.5% of the total stock and further considering the fact that the stock taken by the survey team is valued at selling price there would hardly remain any difference between the physical stock fond by survey team and stock as per books of account. 10. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, are of the considered view that no addition of excess stock of 2,47,561/- was called for and thus finding of both the lower authorities are set aside and the additions for excess stock at Rs.2,47,561/- is deleted. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Smt. Rohini Garg ITA No.177/Ind/2020 5 11. In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo.177/Ind/2020 is allowed. The order pronounced as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 07 .02.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER दनांक /Dated : 07.02.2022 Patel/Sr. PS Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A) concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file. By Order, Asstt.Registrar, I.T.A.T., Indore