News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
Income tax - Whether if excess stock found in assessee's premises is later claimed to be of sister concern which has also paid tax on same, assessee can still be penalised with tax liability on same - NO: Supreme Court

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, APR 08, 2015: THE issue before the Bench is - Whether if excess stock found in the assessee's premises is later claimed as sister concern's stock which has also paid tax on the same, the assessee can still be penalised with tax liability on the same. NO is the answer.

Facts of the case

Assessee firm is engaged in the business of manufacture of PVC pipes. Revenue conducted Survey operations on its factory premises and physically verified the stock of the value of 16,92,420/-. Statement of both the partners were recorded under section 131 of the Act. In the said statement, it was admitted that the stock as per books was around Rs. 3 lakhs and the excess stock of Rs. 13,92,000/- was, accordingly, admitted. On this basis, the addition was made and the assessment order was passed for the assessment years 1992-1993 and 1993-1994.

Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee sought to explain this difference by alleging that up to 23.09.1993, sales of 32809 Kg. of finished products was made by one of the sister concerns of the assessee, namely, M/s Ashish Agro Plast Private Limited, and the same was wrongly shown to be that of the assessee. On this plea taken by the assessee, in support of which some documents / materials were also filed, the Commissioner (Appeals) asked for remand report from the assessing authority. Before the assessing authority, the representatives of assessee were asked to produce the books of accounts of M/s Ashish Agro Plast Private Limited for the assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. It was found that the sales of the finished product of 32809 Kg. as shown in the sales register of the sister concern tallied with the impounded stock register. It was also found that the sales proceeds was received by the sister concern, namely M/s Ashish Agro Plast Private Limited through its bank account in Bank of Baroda, Dudheshwar Road Branch, Ahmedabad. The cheques received against those sales were cleared even prior to the date of survey. Notwithstanding the aforesaid finding which vindicated the stand of the assessee to the aforesaid extent, it was further found that the sale of 33682 Kg. of finished goods was nothing but unaccounted sales out of which 32809 Kg. sales was made to the aforesaid sister concern of the assessee. Taking into consideration this aspect, the Commissioner upheld the order of the assessing authority justifying the additions made on account of unaccounted production, sales and closing stock of finished products.

This order was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court. In fact, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the assessee preferred under Section 260A of the Act on the ground that no substantial question of law arose.

On appeal, the Apex Court held that,

++ normally, going by the aforesaid facts noted, the High Court may be correct in its observation that no substantial question of law arose. However, the counsel for the assessee had brought to our notice a different aspect which was raised at the time of admission of the present special leave petition filed by the assessee. He drew our attention to orders dated 27.02.2004 which reads as under: -

"Leave granted limited to the question as to whether in respect of sales of 32,809 kg., which are shown in the stock register of M/s. Ashish Agro Plast Private Limited, there has been double taxation."

++ it is clear from the above that leave was granted limited to the question as to whether the addition made on account of aforesaid sale would amount to double taxation. To put it differently, the submission of the counsel for the assessee is that on the aforesaid sales, which are found in the accounts of M/s Ashish Plastic Industries, the receipts are shown as income on which tax has been paid by M/s Ashish Agro Plast Private Limited. During the hearing of this appeal, the counsel submitted that he can bring satisfactory evidence in support of this plea. We are of the view that the order of the authorities below should be sustained but if the assessee is able to prove that tax on the income generated from the sale of the aforesaid 32809 Kg. of material has been paid by M/s Ashish Agro Plast Private Limited, benefit thereof should be extended to the assessee;

++ for this purpose, therefore, we remand the case back to the assessing authority, who shall give an opportunity to the assessee to demonstrate as to whether the sister concern has already paid the tax on the aforesaid income from the aforesaid sales and if that is shown, to the extent tax is paid, benefit shall be accorded to the assessee.

(See 2015-TIOL-51-SC-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS