Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Raghuvanshi Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pvt Vs ACIT (ITAT Rajkot)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 222/Rjt/2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/01/2024
Related Assessment Year : 2008-09
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Raghuvanshi Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pvt Vs ACIT (ITAT Rajkot)

 Introduction: In a recent judgment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Rajkot, the case of Raghuvanshi Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pvt Ltd versus ACIT underscores the critical nature of maintaining accurate stock records and the consequences of discrepancies therein. The tribunal’s decision, dated January 3, 2024, reaffirms the authority’s stance on the imperative of accurate financial reporting and the repercussions of deviations, particularly in the context of gross profit (GP) estimations and stock disclosures.

Detailed Analysis: The appeal against the order of CIT(A)-2 for the assessment year 2008-09 was dismissed by ITAT Rajkot, confirming the additions made by the assessing officer (AO) and upheld by CIT(A). The core issues revolved around the estimation of GP and the disclosure of excess stock, with the appellant contending that the additions were unwarranted and based on erroneous presumptions.

The AO had made significant adjustments by estimating the GP ratio at 8% instead of the 6.25% declared by the assessee, leading to an addition of Rs. 2,13,81,988. This adjustment was predicated on the discrepancies observed during the survey and the subsequent failure of the assessee to produce satisfactory explanations or reconcile the differences. Additionally, the AO made an addition of Rs. 52,62,186 concerning excess stock, which was disclosed during the survey but for which the source of acquisition was not satisfactorily explained.

Upon appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s objections, concurring with the AO’s findings. The ITAT, after reviewing the submissions and the materials on record, concurred with the lower authorities’ decisions. The tribunal highlighted the assessee’s failure to produce books of accounts and respond to the questionnaire as a significant factor in upholding the estimated GP and the addition for undisclosed stock under section 69B.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031