2011 (11) TMI 160 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds deletion of unexplained cash credit, reduces additions & disallowances, dismisses Revenue's appeal

Income-tax Officer - 20(2) (3) Versus Nasir Khan J. Mahadik

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of unexplained cash credit for Mr. Afzal Mahadik, citing lack of justification by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The ... Unexplained cash credits determined to the tune of unsecured loan outstanding – Opening balance of such unsecured loans also taken as addition - Difference in G.P. Rate taken as addition – notional interest on unsecured loans applied – Held that:- Section 68 refers to the cash credit found in the books of account of assessee in the year under consideration. A.O. made an arbitrary addition by including the loan taken in the preceding year and adding the so called interest income presumably under section 68 of the Act which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Only fresh loans during the year/ addition to the loan are to be considered.In respect of addition on ground of difference in G.P. - There was marginal variation of 1% in the gross profit. A.O., has wrongly noted higher gross profit rate, which was the rate adopted after taking into consideration the DEPB income also, which is not in accordance with law.In respect of sundry creditors – where sufficient material was brought on record to highlight that all the payments were through bank account and the creditor has sufficient creditworthiness, there no addition is made and in cases of failure to furnish such records addition made in those repect is confirmed. Decided partly in favor of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.2. Gross profit estimation.3. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68:The primary issue in the appeal was the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained cash credits. The A.O. added Rs. 28,67,319/- as unexplained cash credit in the name of Mr. Afzal Mahadik, including an interest component of Rs. 3,44,078/-. The A.O. also added loans taken from Khalid Khan (Rs. 50,000/-) and M/s. Saabia International (Rs. 2,26,000/-) with interest.The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 28,67,319/- after considering the confirmation letters, bank statements, and other supporting documents provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) concluded that the loan from Mr. Afzal Mahadik was fully explained and no interest was paid or claimed. The CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 50,000/- for Khalid Khan and Rs. 2,00,000/- for M/s. Saabia International due to lack of sufficient evidence.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 28,67,319/- for Mr. Afzal Mahadik, noting that the A.O.'s action was arbitrary and lacked proper justification. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) was justified in considering additional evidence. However, the Tribunal modified the addition for M/s. Saabia International, reducing it to Rs. 1,00,000/-, and sustained the addition of Rs. 50,000/- for Khalid Khan.2. Gross Profit Estimation:The A.O. added Rs. 9,15,956/- to the gross profit, citing a fall in the gross profit rate compared to the previous year. The assessee argued that the decrease was due to fluctuations in dollar rates and competitive pricing to attract new customers. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the assessee failed to maintain day-to-day stock tally and provide necessary details.The Tribunal found that the A.O. had adopted an arbitrary method by considering the DEPB income for the previous year but not for the current year. The Tribunal noted that the gross profit rate for the current year was 15.41%, compared to 16.19% for the previous year. The Tribunal deemed it fair to sustain an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of Rs. 9,15,956/-.3. Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenditure:The A.O. disallowed 30% of miscellaneous expenditure, amounting to Rs. 5,84,756/-, citing lack of proper bills and vouchers. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10%, amounting to Rs. 1,94,918/-.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 10%, noting that most of the expenditure was supported by self-made vouchers and the CIT(A) was reasonable in his approach.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross objections. The Tribunal awarded costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the assessee, payable by the Revenue, for the arbitrary action of the A.O. and the mechanical approval by the Commissioner of Income Tax.