Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH
आदेश /O R D E R
PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member:
These appeals are filed by the Legal Representative of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(CIT(A)],
2 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
Guntur vide Appeal No.0002 & 0001/CIT(A)/GNT/07-08 dated 28.02.2011 for the assessment years (A.Ys) 1984-85 and 1985-86. Delay : There was a delay of 31 days in filing the appeal due to the sudden demise of the assessee during the pendency of the appeal hearing. The L/R of the assessee filed condonation petition and requested for condoning the delay explaining the reasons beyond her control. We have considered the condonation petition and the delay is condoned.
The assessee filed appeal raising the following grounds along with Form No.36. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax is not correct in law or on facts in upholding the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act though the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment is not in existence and no addition was made in respect of said income. (2) The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have held that the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer are not in conformity with the provisions of section 147 and hence resultant assessment order is null and void. (3) The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have held that the impugned additions made by the assessing officer were beyond the scope of proceedings under section 147 of the Act in the absence of addition of income on the ground on which assessment was reopened. 3. Subsequently, the assessee filed the additional ground as follows : “The Ld.CIT(A) under the provisions of the Act, is not correct in confirming the addition of Rs.6,18,000/-, for the alleged cash payments in violation of Sec.40A(3) of the I.T.Act, this is when the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the I.T.Act for the alleged under reporting of stock on account of which no addition was made by the AO. AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making the subject disputed addition.”
3 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
The assessee submitted that the additional ground is a legal ground which does not require any enquiry or investigation or any further material. Therefore, requested to admit the additional ground. We have heard both the parties and admit the additional ground.
Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual carrying on business in manufacture and sale of pesticides. The assessee filed his return of income declaring losses of Rs.48,120/- and Rs.295/- respectively for the A.Ys 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. The assessments for the A.Ys 1984-85 and 1985-86 were completed u/s 143(3) and 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘Act’) vide order dated 12.04.1985 and 08.08.1986 respectively. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessments u/s 147(a) by issue of notices u/s 148 on 31.05.1988 and 30.03.1988 for the A.Y. 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. The cases were taken up for scrutiny and the AO found that the assessee has made substantial purchase of technical material for both the Assessment years(A.Ys) from unverifiable parties and accordingly made the additions to the total income as under : A.Y. 1984-85 (i) Addition towards bogus purchases Rs.6,81,000/-
4 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
(ii) Addition towards cash credits Rs.6,66,000/- (iii) Addition towards interest on cash credits Rs.1,61,000/- A.Y. 1985-86 (i) Addition towards bogus purchases Rs.8,27,817 /- (ii) Addition towards cash credits Rs.3,,30,860/- (iii) Addition towards interest on cash credits Rs.2,32,679/-
On appeal the Ld.CIT(A), Vijayawada disposed off the appeal ex-parte on 19.06.1992 as the assessee did not comply with the notices issued to him. The Ld.CIT(A), Vijayawada confirmed the additions partly in respect of bogus purchases. With regard to cash credits, the Ld.CIT(A) opined that the credits to the tune of Rs.2,49,000/- for the A.Y.1984-85 and Rs.84,900/- for the A.Y.1985-86 were offered by the assessee in the settlement petition filed for the subsequent A.Ys. 1986-87 and 1987-88 and there is no justification for disallowing the same creditors again. Accordingly confirmed the additions of bogus purchases and the interest thereon and allowed the appeal partly.
The assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT, and filed the additional ground agitating the validity of reopening of assessment. The
5 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
ITAT vide order dated 22.02.1999 set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
In 2nd round, before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee again raised the validity of assessment made u/s 147 and the assessment of other income without having made the addition in respect of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment i.e. under statement of closing stock. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the submissions made by the Ld.AR and confirmed the reopening of assessment. The Ld.CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue as to why the reopening is valid. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract, relevant part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) from para No.5.2 to 5.8 which reads as under : 5.2. I have considered the submissions made by the appellant, seen the assessment orders and also perused all other material placed before me. As seen from the records while the assessment for the assessment year 1984-85 was originally completed under section 143(3); for the Assessment Year 1985- 86 it was only intimation and in both the cases the returned position was accepted. Subsequent to this there was an action under section 133A and thereafter the AO has reopened the assessments of these two assessment years by issuing notices under section 148. The immediate provocation was closing stock; In as much as the assessment year 1985-86 is concerned there was no assessment as intimation is not an assessment. In as much as the assessment year 1984-85 is concerned, subsequent to assessment under section 143(3) and in light of an action under section 133A, the whole picture changed, as one of the results of the survey under section 133A was that the closing stock admitted was not true. In fact there was total non-cooperation of the appellant in course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85 and compelled the AO to impound the books, before completing the assessment under section 143(3) and the AO was forced to accept the returned income. Thus, even if a stand is taken that for the assessment year 1984-85, before completion of assessment, books were impounded, which is akin to change of opinion, the
6 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
same could not stand judicial scrutiny, as the Apex Court in a catena of cases held that if the AO was in possession of the information that income has escaped assessment he gets jurisdiction for reassessment and acting upon such information may be postponed to subsequent period. 5.3. It may however be noted here that under the provisions of section 147(b) the jurisdiction of the AO to reassess income arises if he has in consequence of information in his possession has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. If there is material on record which discloses that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, the jurisdiction of the AO to reassess the income is not affected and he will be within his powers to act on that information even if it comes to light from the material which was with him but was not acted upon by him earlier. This is precisely the ratio of Apex Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. A. Raman and Co., reported in [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC). In the cases of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs. CIT E19591 35 ITR 1 (SC), Bankipur Club Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (5C), Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC), and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Apex Court has expressed similar opinion. Thus, once it is clear that the AO was in possession of the information, then it need not be acted upon immediately, may be subsequently also.
5.4. So far so good. The reasons recorded by the AO for the impugned assessment years were that the appellant had failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment in so far as it relates to closing stock. He further submitted that no addition was made in the reassessment orders with respect to closing stock. His contention is that once the ground for reopening the assessment did not survive, the AO had no jurisdiction to continue with the reassessment proceedings. Thus, it was argued that since the entire reassessment proceedings were without having valid jurisdiction, the reassessment orders passed by the AO under section 147 are liable to be quashed. For this assertion, he has relied heavily on the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in the Case of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Co., reported in (1989) 1980 ITR 319 (P&H), which has emphasized that when the main reason for reopening did not survive, the AO had no jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment and to make any other addition.
5.5. It may be noted that once the Revenue has reopened the assessment for valid reasons, then the full assessment was open before the AO. It may be noted here that the Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (1999) 236 ITR 34(SC) : (1997) 1952 CTR 418 (SC) expressed the same opinion. It is only to be seen that whether there was some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. In case it is held that the
7 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
case was reopened for valid reasons, it is open to the AO to include other escaped items in the reassessment though such items did not form the basis of initiation of reassessment proceedings. The decisions supporting this view are as under:-
(I) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Mfg. Calico Printing Co. Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 159 (Guj) (ii) CIT vs. Sundaram & Co.(P) Ltd. (1970) 78 ITR 162 (Mad) (iii) CIT vs. Jagannath Maheswari (1957) 32 ITR 418 (Pun]) (iv) Ashoka Viniyog Ltd. Vs. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 381 (Cal) (v) CIT vs. Century Cashew Products (1999) 188 ITR 612(Ker) (vi) H.A.Nanji& Co. vs. ITO (1979) 120 ITR 593 (Cal) (vii) CIT vs. Badri Prasad Rameshwan Prasad (1996) 133 CTR 410 (MP) : (1996) 219 ITR 441 (MP); and (viii) CIT vs. Bihar Cotton Mills Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 275 (Pat): (1986) 54 CTR 53 (Pat). 5.6. The Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Ahmedabad Mfg. Calico Printing Co. LW., reported in (1977) 106 ITR 159 (Guj), has expressed the view that even when it is held that the ground on which reassessment initiated was found to be not surviving, the reassessment could still be completed in respect of other items of escapement of income found subsequently during the course of proceedings under section 147. The Honourable Gujarat High court in another case of Damodar H. Shah Vs. ACIT, reported in (2000) 245 ITR 774 (Guj) had an occasion to consider a similar issue in the context of amended provisions of section 147 and it was observed by their Lordships that if the reason to believe turns out to be wrong during the proceedings, it cannot be said that it did not exist at the time of initiation of proceedings. 5.7 In the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works, reported in (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC), the Apex Court held that once the assessment is validly reopened by issuing a notice under section 148, the previous under assessment stands set aside and the AO has not only the jurisdiction but is also duty bound to levy tax on the entire income which has escaped assessment during the course of original assessment. In the case of CWT vs. D.R. Wadera Lit-I of HansrajWadera, reported in (2000) 163 CTR 251 (Delhi), the Honourable High Court has held that once valid proceedings have started for reassessment, the AO has the jurisdiction to tax the entire wealth which had escaped assessment without making any distinction between those items in respect of which reassessment proceedings have been initiated and other items which formed part of wealth but had not escaped assessment. In the case of Late R.B. Seth Ramratan vs. CIT,
8 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
reported in (1985) 156 ITR 612 (Del), it has been observed that the distinction between the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and the reassessment being sustained on merits should be understood and proceeded to hold that the jurisdiction to reopen does not necessarily lead to the inference that there has been an escapement of income.
5.8 Thus, having regard to the legal opinion brought on record in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the reassessments made by the AO for both the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86, wherein no addition has been made for the reasons recorded for reopening the completed assessment / intimation are still valid and they cannot be dismissed as null and void and as such this ground for both the assessment years is treated as dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. With regard to Ground No.2, of the appeal the Ld.AR did not make any submission or furnished any fresh material, therefore, we dismiss the ground No.2.
Ground No.1, 3 and additional grounds are only on one issue i.e. the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of assessment made u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) in the absence of any addition made relating to the reasons recorded. The AO reopened the assessment for understatement of the stocks and made the addition of bogus purchases in the assessment made u/s 143(3). The said bogus purchases were also disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Ground Nos. 1, 3 and additional ground revolve around the issue of jurisdiction of the AO to make the additions on other issues, without
9 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
making the addition for which the assessment was reopened. The Ld. AR argued that unless the income which has escaped assessment as per the reasons recorded is brought to tax, the AO is not permitted to make any other addition. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that in this case, the AO has reopened the assessment for both the A.Ys for understatement of closing stock. During the assessment proceedings, the AO did not find any defect in the closing stock, thus, no addition was made on account of suppression of closing stock and the AO made the addition of bogus purchases and simultaneously the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld.AR is of the view that as per the settled case laws, the AO is not permitted to assess the other income which has come to the notice of the AO during the reassessment proceedings unless the assessment results into the addition on the issue for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated. Ld.A.R. accordingly argued that the assessment made u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and the additions made on account of bogus purchases and the disallowance u/s 40A(3) in the assessment made u/s 143(3) required to be deleted. The Ld.AR also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of A.P. and Telangana in the case of Swarna Andhra IJMII Integrated Township Development Private Limited, Hyderabad, in ITTA No.165 of 2014 dated 12/03/2014.
10 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, for the A.Y. 1984-85, the assessment was completed u//s 143(3) and for the A.Y. 1985-86, the assessment was completed u/s 143(1) of the Act as per the orders dated 12.04.1985 and 08.08.1986 respectively. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not cooperate with the AO in furnishing the required details for completion of assessment. Therefore, the AO has compelled to impound the books of accounts and complete the assessments. Subsequently, a survey u/s 133A was conducted in the business premises of the assessee and found that the assessee has understated the closing stock. Therefore, the AO reopened the assessments after recording the reasons as under : A.Y. 1984-85 . “For the assessment year 1984-85 the assessee had filed his return of income on 13.03.1985 disclosing the loss of Rs.48,120/-. In the return of income filed the assessee has shown the value of closing stock as on 31.03.84 at Rs.30,596/-. It was observed that the assessee had made purchases of technicals from dt.3.3.84 to 31.3.84 to the tune of Rs.2,06,500/-. For the year the assessee had shown a gross profit of 18% over the sales of pesticides effected by him. The assessee had made the sales of pesticides from dt.3.3.84 to dt.31.3.84 to the tune of Rs.70,175/-. This together with the closing stock disclosed the return of income amounting to Rs.1,00,771/-. Even assuming if not accepting that there was no closing stock as on dt.3.3.84 with the assessee the assessee should have a closing stock worth about 1.36 lakhs, even without considering the gross profit margin by himself. As against this, the assessee has shown the value of closing stock at Rs.30,596/- only which is more than Rs.1,05,000/- less than what it should have been.
11 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
Hence I have reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment year 1984-85. Income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, the assessment is reopened u/s 147(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” A.Y. 1985-86 For the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee had filed his return of income on 16.6.86 as against the due date of 31.7.1985. Thus there was delay of about 11 months for filing his return. In the return of income the assessee had declared a loss of Rs.295/-. During the year, the assessee had made the purchases of technical to the extent of Rs.18,99,642/-. Out of these purchases on 31.3.1985 itself, the assessee had made purchases of technical BHC to the tune of Rs2,70,287/-. The quantity purchases was 40 tons and the bills of purchases effected on 31.3.1985 are as follows :- 29.3.85 Ferry Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd., Madras 10 Tons Rs.67,500 30.3.85 -do- 10 Tons Rs.67,500 28.3.85 Drier Chemicals, Madras 10 Tons Rs.65,637 30.3.85 -do- 10 Tons Rs.69,650 All the above purchases were entered in the day book and also in the ledger on 3I.3.1985, indicating that all these purchases were effected on 31.3.1985. 2) But in the statements filed along with the return; the assessee had shown the closing stock of BHC technical at 13-121 M.Tonnes. for Rs.74,790/-. The closing stock of finished goods, 10% of BHC was shown at 118 Tons, that means if we assume that the product is manufactured as per the specifications, i.e., with 10% concentration 11.8 M. Tonnes of BHC technical must have gone into the production of 118 M.tonnes of BHC technical, the sales of BHC either raw material or the finished goods after 21-3-1983 was ‘nil’ that means, there was no sale of BHC effected out of the material purchased on 31-3-1985. In that case it should lie in the form of either closing stock of technical or finished product. But as per the above calculations given, the closing stock of technical was 13-121 M.Tonnes whereas the closing stock of finished goods, the technical consumed was only 11.8 tones, totaling 24.92 tons as against the purchase of 40 tons of BHC technical on 31-3-1985 itself this is the case when no opening stock was estimated on 30-3-1985. If any opening stock was happened to be thereon 30-3-1985, there should have been further stocks of either technical or finished product or both. As per the above calculation stock of BHC technical should have been 15 tones more than what was reported in the statements filed along with the return of income, this 15 tons of BHC technical valued about Rs. 1,00,000/- even taking the last purchase by the assesses himself into consideration, This an count was not offered as income of the assessee for the asst. year 1985-86. 3) Hence, I have reason to believe that by reason or the omission or failure on the part of the assessee not disclosing fully and truly all material
12 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
facts necessary for his assessment for the asst.year 1985-86, Income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, the assessment is reopened u/s 147(a) of the I.T.Act. 4) This reconciliation of stock could not be carried out at the time of making the assessment as necessary particulars were not readily available on the file. This could be done only after impounding the books of account consequent to issue of notice u/s 131 of the I.T.Act, 1961 after the operations u/s133A of the income Tax Act, 1961 were conducted on the assessee's premises on 28-7-1987. 10.1 It is observed from the reasons recorded that that the assessee had made purchases of technicals from dt.3.3.84 to 31.03.84 to the tune of Rs.2,06,500/- and the sales were Rs.70,175/- and the closing stock should have been Rs.1,36,325/-(206500-70175) without the gross profit margin. Against which the assessee declared the closing stock of Rs.30,586/-. For the year the assessee had shown a gross profit of 18% over the sales of pesticides effected by him. From the reasons recorded, it is found that the AO reopened the assessment for understatement of the closing stock.
10.2 Similarly for the A.Y. 1985-86, the closing stock should have been 15 tons more than what was declared in the statements filed along with the return of income which should be Rs.1,00,000/- and against which the assessee declared a sum of Rs.74,790/- as closing stock,thus, it is evident from the reasons recorded that the assessment was reopened for understatement of closing stock for the A.Y. 1985-86 also. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not produce the stock registers
13 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
before the assessing officer. This fact is evident from page No.4 of the assessment order in para No.2.4. In the absence of stock register the AO could not make verification of the quantitative purchases, sales and the closing stock. The AO found that the assessee has stated to have made the purchases of technicals for the A.Y. 1984-85 from the following persons to the extent of Rs.6,18,00,000/-: Invoice Amount Date 1. Ferry Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd. 22.2.84 69,000 2. Drier Chemicals Ltd. 20.3.84 69,000 3. Northern Pesto Industries Bombay 8.1.84 68,500 2.3.84 69,000 4. Mahaveer Agro Chemicals, Bombay 14.1.84 69,000 14.2.84 68,500 5. United Pesticides & Chemicals Ltd., Madras 24.1.84 68,500 5.2.84 68,000 8.3.84 68,500 Total 6,18,000
As per the enquiries conducted by the AO the said purchased proved to be bogus, since, the letters addressed to them were returned unserved with remarks address not known. Enquiries conducted at the address mentioned revealed that no such concerns ever existed in the places mentioned therein. When this fact was put to the assessee, the assessee replied that the purchases were made at the assessee’s place and the vendors have issued the bills and the payment was made in cash. Since the
14 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
assessee could not prove the genuineness purchases with the stock registers or produce the vendors or with any other evidence, hence, the AO held that the purchases were bogus and accordingly made the addition.
10.3. Further since the assessee stated to have made the payment in cash which attracts the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO made the addition alternately u/s 40A(3) of the Act also. The AO made the addition of the same amount on both the grounds of disallowance u/s 40A3 as well as the bogus purchases.
10.4 Similarly, for the A.Y.85-86 the AO made the addition on account of bogus purchases of technicals in the following entities to the extent of Rs.8,27,817/- which were proved to be bogus. Invoice Amount Date 1. Navajeevan Traders 6.5.84 65,500.00 15.7.84 65,000.00 18.9.84 64,000.00 12.12.84 74,730.00 22.1.85 61,500.00 2. Jagruthi Dye Chemical & Industries, 3.7.84 66,102.63 Ahmedabad 11.8.84 62,598.89 24.1.85 68,500.00 3. Ferry Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Madras 30.3.85 67,500.00 29.3.85 67,600.00 4. Drier Chemicals Ltd. 30.3.85 69,500.00 28.3.85 65,637.00
15 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
Crescent Chemicals, Bombay 22.1.85 29,598.00 8,27,817.00
From the above, it is established that the AO has reopened the assessment for understatement of closing stock and made the addition representing the same amount under bogus purchases as well as the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, hence, the Ld.AR’s contention that the addition was made on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3) alone is incorrect and for the sake of repetition we observe that the AO has made the addition of the same amount on account of bogus purchases as well as the disallowance u/s 40A(3). The assessee is of the view that since, the AO failed to make the addition representing the closing stock, he is not permitted to make the addition on account of bogus purchases or the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In fact, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) was made by the AO as a second proposition but the primary finding of the AO was the purchases were bogus. The AO has given a clear finding that the purchases were bogus. In this case, the AO has reopened the assessment for understatement of stock and the assessee never produced the stock registers before the AO to verify the purchases, sales and to prove the correctness of stock with stock register. Purchases and the sales are part and parcel of the stocks maintained by the assessee and they are
16 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
inseparable. The purchases, sales and the stock are inter linked and for arriving the closing stock either at the end of the year or for any particular date, purchases to be added to the opening stock and sales are to be reduced. Purchases goes to increase the stock position and the sales goes to reduce the stock position. Bogus purchases results into artificial inflation of stocks and the expenditure without actually receiving the goods. Similarly, unaccounted purchases also disturb the stock position. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the AO did not make the addition in respect of closing stock when the addition was made on account of purchases. The AO found the bogus purchases which had direct impact on stock and without purchases there cannot be any stocks Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to hold that reopening of assessments and the additions made by the AO on account of purchases is one and the same and they are inter linked and inter dependent on each other. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of Swarna Andhra IJMII Integrated Township Development Private Limited, Hyderabad, and in the case referred there was no nexus with the income, ultimately assessed and the reasons recorded for reopening. Whereas, in the assessee’s case there was complete nexus with the reasons recorded and the addition made. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is not
17 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
applicable in the assessee’s case. Similarly, the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Ltd. 195 taxman 0117 is also related to the escapement of income and the income ultimately assessed. Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the AO required to assessee such income and re-assess any other income which comes to his notice, subsequently, in the course of proceedings under the section. Thus, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court also held that if there is no addition on account of reasons recorded, there is no case for making any addition on any other issue. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr.Devendra Gupta, 174 Taxman 0438 also has given the same ruling. In the instant case, the assessment was reopened for understatement of closing stock and the AO made the addition on account of bogus purchases as well as the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In fact all the above case laws support the case of the revenue. While arriving at the closing stock position and to arrive the difference in closing stock both the purchases and sales required to be considered together, but not the purchases, stock and sales to be considered independently. If the stocks are considered in isolation, without taking into purchases and sales, it gives absurd results. Thus in our considered opinion, the addition on account of bogus purchases is directly related to the closing stock and the case laws
18 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur
relied upon by the Ld.AR is not applicable in the assessee’s case. Accordingly, we uphold the assessment made u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and dismiss the appeals of the assessee.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 7th December, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (िी.दुगाा राि) (धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER धिशाखापटणम /Visakhapatnam ददिांक /Dated :07.12.2018 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant - L.Sudha Bala L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Industries, 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar, 2nd Lane, Guntur 2. प्रत्याथी / The Respondent – Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range Guntur 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),Guntur 5. धिभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम /DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गाडा फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER // True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM