2012 (5) TMI 752 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms CIT(A) decisions, dismissing appeals, and cross-objections. Sections 68, 40A(3), and 145 addressed properly.

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Farrukhabad Versus Shri Om Prakash Tripathi and Other

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Farrukhabad Versus Shri Om Prakash Tripathi and Other - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act (unexplained deposits).2. Deletion of addition under Section 40A(3) (cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000).3. Deletion of addition on account of refund of security.4. Application of Section 145 for book rejection and estimation of net profit rate.5. Deduction under Section 80L.6. Charging of interest under Section 234B and initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition under Section 68 (Unexplained Deposits):The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,04,510/- made under Section 68, arguing that the assessee failed to produce depositors and prove their creditworthiness and the genuineness of transactions. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition after the remand report confirmed the outstanding balances from the parties, except for one who had died. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68 and the transactions were found genuine.2. Deletion of Addition under Section 40A(3) (Cash Payments Exceeding Rs. 20,000):The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 1,51,400/- added under Section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000. The CIT(A) found that the payments were recorded in the cash book and no single payment exceeded Rs. 20,000. The Tribunal confirmed that Section 40A(3) was not applicable as the payments were verifiable, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Refund of Security:The Revenue argued against the deletion of Rs. 19,800/- added by the Assessing Officer as it was not deducted from contractual receipts. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating it was a refund of security and not a contractual payment. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s order.4. Application of Section 145 for Book Rejection and Estimation of Net Profit Rate:The assessee contended that the CIT(A) wrongly applied Section 145 and rejected the books of accounts, estimating a net profit rate of 7% instead of the declared 5.32%. The CIT(A) found that the books were not properly maintained, and the true profit could not be determined. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s application of a 7% net profit rate, considering the past profit rates and the assessee's inconsistent maintenance of books.5. Deduction under Section 80L:The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 12,000/- under Section 80L for bank/NSC interest. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction as it was consequential in nature.6. Charging of Interest under Section 234B and Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The assessee argued against the charge of interest under Section 234B and the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal noted that the interest charge was consequential, directing the Assessing Officer accordingly. The penalty initiation was deemed premature and dismissed as infructuous.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues. The Tribunal confirmed that the additions under Sections 68 and 40A(3) were rightly deleted, the application of Section 145 was appropriate, and the deductions and penalties were addressed correctly.