2006 (10) TMI 360 - AT - Income Tax

Unauthorized IT Inspector's statements excluded, leading to dismissal of trading additions. Better GP rate supports argument. No basis for additional job work receipts. Appeal against deceased allowed.

Kailash Chand Versus Income-tax Officer

The Tribunal excluded statements taken by an unauthorized IT Inspector during a search as evidence, leading to the dismissal of trading additions based on ... Method of accounting - Estimation of profit Issues involved: Cross-appeals filed against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 19-12-2002 pertaining to assessment year 2000-01.Additional Ground of Appeal:- The additional ground relates to the action of the IT Inspector in taking statements during a search.- The Inspector of IT was not authorized to administer oath for recording statements.- Statements of a key individual were not signed by the Inspector or Assessing Officer, rendering them invalid as evidence.- Trading addition was based solely on these statements, leading to a significant discrepancy in stock valuation.- Assessing Officer made a trading addition after rejecting books of accounts under section 145(1) and applying a higher GP rate.- Tribunal excluded the statements as valid evidence due to lack of proper authentication.- Assessee's better GP rate in the current year compared to previous years supported the argument against further trading additions.- No concrete evidence supporting trading addition was found during the survey.- Tribunal allowed ground No. 1 of assessee's appeal and dismissed ground No. 1 of revenue's appeal.Job Work Receipts:- Assessing Officer estimated net income from job works and made an addition, which was later reduced by the CIT(A).- Tribunal agreed with CIT(A) that there was no basis for additional addition in job work receipts.- Income shown by the assessee from job work was supported by documentary evidence.- Ground related to job work receipts addition was dismissed.Appeal Against Deceased Person:- Legal plea raised regarding the appeal filed against a deceased person.- The appellant provided a death certificate of the deceased individual.- Tribunal noted that any appeal against a deceased person is not maintainable if the respondent is the only one.- The fact of the individual's death was brought to the notice of the ITO after the appeal was filed before the Tribunal.- The revenue corrected the mistake by filing the Legal Representatives on record.- The appeal was not deemed to abate and was considered a curable irregularity.- Both appeals were partly allowed in the result.