Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court On mere recording of the inventory in the books of accounts, the transaction in question would not become stock in trade MANU/SC/0524/2023 - (04 May 2023) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Glowshine Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Revenue has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court by which, the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (ITAT) by which the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of Rs. 15,94,06,500¬ was deleted. 
ITAT has neither dealt with the findings given by the AO nor verified/examined the total sales made by the assessee during the relevant time and during the previous years. Merely on the basis of recording of the inventory in the books of accounts, the transaction in question would not become stock in trade. As per the settled position of law in order to examine whether a particular transaction is sale of capital assets or business expense, multiple factors like frequency of trade and volume of trade, nature of transaction over the years etc., are required to be examined. From the order passed by the ITAT, it appears that the ITAT has without examining any of the relevant factors confirmed that the transaction was transfer of stock in trade. 
As per the claim of the assessee and the entry made and reflected in the ledger account of the assessee as on 31st March, 2008, an amount of Rs. 15,94,06,500 was paid to a third party i.e., SICCL. However, thereafter, according to the assessee, there was a rectification deed and the amount was reduced from Rs. 15,94,06,500¬ to Rs. 5,24,27,354¬. The ITAT has not even questioned the factum of refund of differential amount of Rs. 10,69,79,146 to the purchaser on account of rectification deed dated 30.05.2008. The ITAT ought to have appreciated that the moment the receipt of amount is received and recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee unless shown to be refunded/returned, it is to be treated as income in the hands of the recipient. 
The ITAT has not considered the relevant aspects/relevant factors while considering the transaction in question as stock in trade and has not considered the relevant aspects which were required to be considered by the ITAT. The matter is required to be remanded to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh and to take into consideration the relevant factors while considering the transaction as stock in trade or as sale of capital assets or business transaction. Appeal allowed in part.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Assessment, Addition, Transaction</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>