DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. TULSHIRAM VITHALRAO KOYALE, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 624/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 July 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) held that the excess stock was part of the assessee's business stock and arose from business income. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding no evidence to rebut this and citing a High Court precedent.

What were the facts?

During a survey, excess stock of Rs. 2,98,56,142 was found. The assessee explained this was due to unrecorded purchases. The Assessing Officer sought to tax this excess stock under Section 69B read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether excess stock found during a survey, explained as unrecorded purchases, can be taxed as deemed income under Section 69B read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,Section 115BBE,Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi – AR
For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.CIT(DR)
Hearing: 31/07/2024Pronounced: 31/07/2024

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-12 passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act, dated 29.01.2024 for the A.Y.2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances o! the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting the tax calculated on special rates as per provisions of section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT.

Shri Tulshiram VithalraoKoyale, Latur [R] Act on declaration made of Rs.2,98,56,142/- on account of excess stock found.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in law and in fads by not appreciating the facts that the main reason for excess stock found was because of unrecorded purchases.

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts by not appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to explain the nature and source of income utilize for unrecorded purchases which resulted into excess stock found and failed to produce supporting purchase bill or other relevant documentary evidences.

4. The appellant craves leave to add. alter, modify. delete, and amend any of the grounds, as per the circumstances of the cases.”

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

Findings &Analysis : 3. Assessee is a Trader, trading in Gold and Silver Ornaments. There was a survey u/sec.133A of the Act on 21.01.2019 i.e. before the closure of books of accounts for F.Y.2018-19. The survey team observed that there was excess stock of Rs.2,98,56,142/-, based on the tentative trading account prepared during the survey. The assessee during the survey submitted that excess stock is on account of URD Purchases which remained to entered in the books. Assessee also submitted that assessee is into only one business activity i.e. Trading of gold and silver ornaments.

Shri Tulshiram VithalraoKoyale, Latur [R] 3.1 After the survey, assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y.2019-20 on 24.08.2019 declaring total income at Rs.3,23,26,520/- u/sec.139(1) of the Act. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer(AO) accepted returned income and held assessed income at Rs.3,23,26,520/-. The AO held that excess stock needs to be taxed u/sec.69B r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) gave a categorical finding in para 3.14 and 3.15 that the excess stock was assessee’s business stock and it was out of assessee’s business income. Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to rebut the findings of the ld.CIT(A). In this case, it is an admitted position that AO has accepted returned income. The AO has also accepted books of accounts and Audit Report. The assessee had show excess stock in the Trading Account. This fact has not been challenged by the AO.

4.

The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Bajrang Traders in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.258 of 2017 dated 12.09.2017 has upheld the order of ITAT on identical facts of Shri Tulshiram VithalraoKoyale, Latur [R] excess stock found during the survey. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the ld.CIT(A) that the stock found cannot be taxed as deemed income u/sec.69B of the Act. Therefore, provisions of section 115BBE are not appliable. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →