Khetan Tiles Pvt. Ltd. , Jaipur vs Department Of Income Tax

Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM

vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 549/JP/2012 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09

The ACIT cuke M/s. Khetan Tiles (P) Ltd. Circle- 4 Vs. C-59, Road No.5, VKI Area Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCK 0431 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Neena Jeph (JCIT). fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 03/11/2014 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 16 /01/2015

vkns'k@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld.

CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 16-03-2012 for the assessment year 2008-09

wherein the Revenue has raised the following ground:-

''On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in:-

(i) deleting trading addition of Rs. 27,45,015/-

made by the AO by not upholding rejection of books of 2 ITA No. 549/JP/2012 ACIT vs. M/s. Khaitan Tiles (P) Ltd.

account despite the fact that the assessee neither had any reasonable basis for valuation of old and inferior stock @ 25% of rate of fresh stock nor it was able to identify such stock.''

2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee deals in manufacturing,

trading and export of Marble, tiles and slabs. The assessee had disclosed a

gross profit rate of 37.92% on turnover of Rs. 9.58 crores as against gross

profit rate of 40.79% on turnover of Rs. 1.04 crores in preceding year.

While valuing the closimg stock of Marble, tiles and slabs, the assessee

had estimated 50% stock as defective which could fetch market value @

25% of the stock of fresh goods. Following the past history of the

assessee, the AO rejected the books of accounts and adopted the higher

gross profit rate of last year at 40.79% and made the impugned addition.

2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal wherein the ld.

CIT(A) relied on ITAT order in assessee's own case dated 24-04-2009 for

the assessment year 2005-06. In this case, the AO made similar type of

addition and the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. The order of the ld.

CIT(A) deleting the additions was confirmed by ITAT by following

observations.

3 ITA No. 549/JP/2012

ACIT vs. M/s. Khaitan Tiles (P) Ltd.

''We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We concur with the views of the ld. CIT(A) that valuation of closing stock is being followed consistently as in the past year. As regards the variation of the production vis-a-vis power consumption, the explanation of the assessee in the preceding years is that there was total production of marble of M/s. Andhi Mines whereas during year the total production was of colour marbles of Bidasar mines which is more hard resulting into more power consumption. Therefore, in such circumstances and facts of the case and in the absence of any specific defect, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly reversed the order of the AO.''

2.3 The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order held that there were no

specific defects which were pointed out by the AO. The method of stock

valuation was consistently followed. Thus in the entirety of the facts and

circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the books of accounts and deleted

the addition by following observations.

''3.3 On careful consideration of facts, the explanation rendered by the appellant is found to be plausible. The issue under consideration is also covered by the order of my predecessor and Hon'ble ITAT for the earlier years. My predecessor vide his order No. 703/JP/07- 08 dated 14-10-2006 for assessment year 2005-06 had held that the AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) only on the ground of valuation of defect stock being done on estimate basis. It was held that method of valuation of the closing stock was the same as in the 4 ITA No. 549/JP/2012 ACIT vs. M/s. Khaitan Tiles (P) Ltd.

earlier year and it was consistently followed. Similarly complete details of sundry creditors alongwith their complete addresses have been filed by the appellant before me. As regars commission of Rs. 4292,450/- paid to various persons, the appellant had filed details of commission paid, tax deducted at source and PAN of each recipient vide letter dated 23-07-2010 during the course of assessment proceedings. There is nothing on record brought by the AO to substantiate his allegation that commission expenses were inflated or bogus. In the absence of any material discrepancy, the books of accounts cannot be rejected light heartedly. The appellant had satisfactorily explained that fall in gross profit was attributed to the increase in turnover from Rs. 6.40 crores to Rs. 9.57 crores. Hence, the gross profit was bound to vary from year to year. I accordingly direct the AO to delete the trading addition of Rs. 27,47,015/- made by him. These grounds of appeal are allowed. ''

2.4 The ld. DR supported the order of the AO.

2.5 The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts of the case and

further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

CIT vs. Excel Industries, (2013) 358 ITR 295 for the proposition that

difference in closing stock valuation amounts to preponement or 5 ITA No. 549/JP/2012 ACIT vs. M/s. Khaitan Tiles (P) Ltd.

postponement of taxation as if the closing stock is increased in this year,

it will be allowed as opening stock in the next year and it will reduce the

taxability of the next year. Therefore, such additions are Revenue neutral.

It is further pleaded that the AO has unjustifiably applied the higher gross

profit rate of preceding year which was earned on a meager turnover of

Rs. 1.04 crores whereas in this year the turnover has increased from

Rs. 1.04 crores to Rs. 9.58 crores. Thus there being valid justification for

decrease in GP, there is no justification in such addition. The ld. CIT(A)

has rightly deleted the addition looking at the merits and past history of

ITAT judgment in assessee's own case and it is supported by Hon'ble

Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries, (supra).

2.6 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials

available on record. In our considered the view, the ld. CIT(A) has taken

justified view by following ITAT order in assessee's own case. The basis

of rejection of account books cannot be upheld as no specific defects are

pointed out and the issue of valuation of closing stock has been used as a

tool to reject the books of account which cannot be upheld. There cannot

be a fair comparison of gross profit rate of 40.79% on turnover of

Rs. 1.04 crores as against turnover of Rs. 9.58 crores. Besides the 6 ITA No. 549/JP/2012 ACIT vs. M/s. Khaitan Tiles (P) Ltd.

addition relatable to valuation of closing stock has been held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries (supra) to

be preponement or postponement of taxation. Thus in the entirety of the

facts and circumstances of the case, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A)

and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

3.0 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2015.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½ ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ (T.R. Meena) (R.P.Tolani) ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16th January, 2015

*Mishra

vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ACIT, Circle- 4, Jaipur

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s. Khaitan Tiles (P) Ltd., Jaipur .

3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A).

4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, Jaipur

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.549/JP/2012)

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar 7 ITA No. 549/JP/2012 ACIT vs. M/s. Khaitan Tiles (P) Ltd.