Loading judgment…
Facts
During a search and seizure operation, a stock of Kota Stone was found to be short by 45,930 Sq. Feet. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this shortage as unaccounted sales and added Rs. 4,59,300/- to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the addition should not be the entire sale value but only the profit element on the unaccounted sales. The Tribunal calculated the net profit on the shortage of stock to be Rs. 15,054/- after considering the set-off of already accounted unaccounted sales.
Key Issues
Whether the full value of the shortage of stock can be treated as unaccounted sales, or only the profit element thereof should be taxed.
Sections Cited
132(1), 139, 143(2), 142(1), 153B(1)(b), 4, 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 180/JP/2024
appellate order. The addition is also on account of and with reference to passing the assessment order, it was incumbent up on the Learned Assessing Officer to have given set-off of this unaccounted sales against stock found short. Both these are co-related. The stock was found short as the same was sold unaccounted. In other words, unaccounted sales as upheld by the Learned CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 30,876/- are relatable to shortage of stock on account of which addition of Rs. 45,930/- worked out as discussed above. Considering the addition already sustained on account of unaccounted sales of Rs. 30,876/- by the ld. CIT(A) the net addition now requires to be upheld works out to Rs.15054/- (45930 – 30876). In the light of this discussion addition sustained by the Learned CIT(A) for an addition of Rs. 4,59,300/- requires to be reduced to Rs. 15054/-. In the light of the discussion so recorded the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/04/2024.
16 Dilip Kumar Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22/04/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Dilip Kumar Jain, Ramganjmandi izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Assistant Commissioner, Kota 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 180/JP/2024) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत