Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S.navneet Motors(D.b.income Tax Appeal

Pr.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR VS. M/S.NAVNEET MOTORS(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.9/16) Dated:- 20.5.16. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHAHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellant. 1.This appeal is directed against order dated 8.10.15, of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur,whereby the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order dated27.6.12 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)],stands dismissed. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learnedITAT has seriously erred in deleting the addition made by AssessingOfficer (AO) on account of under valuation of closing stock to theextent of 27,42,399/- out of total addition of Rs.75,21,030/-. Learnedcounsel submitted that the ITAT has ignored the fact that variousexplanations furnished by the assessee were contradictory and notconvincing with reference to original facts and figures furnished. 3.It is to be noticed that the AO has made addition by excludingVAT from the closing stock. The contention of the assessee was that ifthe VAT is added in closing stock corresponding credit may be given inopening stock in the next year and thus, as per the accepted principleof accountancy, the credit of amount of Rs.27,42,399/- was allowedby the CIT(A) in the opening stock of the next year. The order passedas aforesaid by the CIT (A) has been affirmed by the ITAT. In the considered opinion of this court, deletion of the claim to the extentnoticed hereinabove by the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT as per theaccepted principle of accountancy, remains a finding of fact and doesnot give rise to any substantial question of law. 4.It is next contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the ITAT has erred in confirming the order of the CIT (A) deletingaddition of Rs.1,06,66,379/- made on account of suppression of sales.Learned counsel submitted that the sale of Ashok LeylandTrucks/Chasis by the assessee at Udaipur in the month of March wasdisclosed to be Rs.2,15,52,451/- whereas as per the sale bills, thesame was Rs.3,11,21,177/- and thus, the difference of sales ofRs.95,69,326/- was not disclosed. Similarly, at Banswara, there wasdifference of sales for the month of March to the tune ofRs.10,97,053/- and therefore, the addition made by the AO on accountof suppression of sales was absolutely justified. 5.Indisputably, the assessee had explained before the AO that forthe discount and subvention charges credit notes were issued tovarious parties and these credit notes have been accounted for in thebooks of account in the month of March at the year end, as per thegeneral practice followed from year to year. After due examination ofthe books of account of the assessee, the CIT (A) has recorded thefinding that the assessee provides finance from the finance companyto boost the sales and these finance company sometime pay lesseramount in lieu of full and final payment, which are called subventioncharges and are also considered as discount. The CIT (A) found thatthe discount amount is reduced by the assessee from the sales at the Aditya/ year end as per the regularly followed accounting systems and thus,the assessee has taken the gross amount in the trading account andthe discount and subvention charges have been reduced therefrom.The CIT (A) opined that if not reduced from the gross sale amount, thediscount and subvention charges will be available as debit in the profitand loss account. Thus, the finding arrived at by the CIT (A) that theaddition made on account of suppression of sales is as a matter ofgenuine discount given by the assessee, affirmed by the ITAT, remainsa finding of fact and does not give rise to any substantial question oflaw for consideration of this court. 6.In the result, the appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. (KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. (SANGEET LODHA),J.