ACIT, Agra V. Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, Mathura

ITSSA 3/AGR/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9399 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-04-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MISHRA SR DR SHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: E PASS ROAD MATHURA

Judgement Text

1 ITSSA 03-08 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH : AGRA. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI P.K. BANSAL ) ITSSA NO. 03/AG./2008 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1996 TO 10.12.2002. THE ACIT, VS. SHRI ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA. PROP. R.K. ENTERPRISES, M ATHURA DELHI BYE PASS ROAD, MATHURA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. MISHRA, SR. D/R RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARGH, ADV OCATE ORDER PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA RELATING TO BLOCK PERIOD1.4.1996 TO 10.12.2002. 2. THE DEPARTMENT IS OBJECTING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 5,68,747/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF S EARCH. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IN THIS REGARD ARE T HAT SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE IT ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PRE MISES ON 10.12.2002. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF PAN MASAL A SADA AND GUTKA OF RAJ DARBAR AND RAHAT BRANDS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INVENTORY OF STOCK WAS PREPARED AS ANNEXURE S-1 AND S-2 OF THE PANCHNAMA. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENC E IN THE STOCK AS PER INVENTORY PREPARED 2 DURING THE SEARCH AND AS PER STOCK REGISTER. THE A SSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY IN THE STOCK. DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON WERE FILED. THE REASON FOR DIFFERENCE IN STOCK INVENTORY PREPARED BY THE DEPAR TMENT AND FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS EXPLAINED. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THA T DIFFERENCE IN WEIGHT OF OTHER ITEMS IS NOMINAL AS THE WEIGHT WAS TAKEN BY ESTIMATE, HENCE THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STOCK AS PER STOC K REGISTER TALLIED WITH THE ACCOUNTS BOOK. THE STOCK AS PER ACCOUNTS BOOK AND AS PER STOCK REG ISTER HAVE BEEN CARRIED FORWARD IN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD. ALL THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF S UBSEQUENT PERIOD ARE FULLY VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE AND ARE RECORDED IN THE STOCK REGIST ER. THE STOCKS AS PER ACCOUNTS BOOK AND AS PER STOCK REGISTER HAVE BEEN SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED. ACCORDINGLY , HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,68,747/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK BY TREATING T HE SAME UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REITERATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE DETAILS OF STOCK ITEM-WISE WAS FILED WHICH IS T ABULATED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AT PAGES 4 & 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS SATISFIED THAT IN FACT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN STOCK. THE EXCESS STOCK RECORDED BY THE SEARCH PARTY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF STOC K TAKEN ON ESTIMATE BASIS. OTHERWISE, EACH AND EVERY ITEM IS RECORDED AND THERE IS NO DIF FERENCE IN ITEM PURCHASED AS THE DIFFERENCE WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION. THEREF ORE, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 4. THE LD. D/R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF ASSE SSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 3 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND A SSESSING OFFICER, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) WHO AFTER ASC ERTAINING THE VARIOUS EXPENSES, THEN ONLY DELETED THE ADDITION. ITEMS OF STOCK DETAILS W ERE FILED AND THEY WERE TALLIED WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STOCK REGISTER. THE DI FFERENCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED VALUE TAKEN BY THE SEARCH PARTY OTHERWISE THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS D ISMISSED. 8. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22. 04.2010. SD/- SD/- ( P.K. BANSAL ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AGRA, DATED : 23/04/2010. D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. THE D/R, ITAT AGRA. GUARD FILE (ITSSA 03/AG/2008) BY ORDER, AR ITAT AGRA.