2012 (10) TMI 352 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds Commissioner's decisions on income tax appeals, supporting adjustments with evidence.

The Income-tax Officer, Ward I(1), Pollachi Versus M/s. Sri Senthil Mills

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals by the assessee and the Revenue, upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decisions. The Tribunal confirmed ... Rejection of Books of accounts – Calculate profit on the basis of GP rate, of other similar line of business @ 8.12% - AO has observed that the assessee has not maintained proper books of accounts – Held that:- As the CIT(A) adopted a G.P. rate of 5%, being the average of 2.57% + 7.52% for the GP rate of earlier years. No infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Issue decides in against of revenue Addition on account of cash credit u/s 68 – Assessee received security deposit from another party against supplying the fabric to two parties – AO made addition on the basis of Only his objection is that there is no entry in the books of accounts of such another person in respect of two parties – Held that:- When the assessee received payments from a limited company and the payment also received through a bank, i.e. cheque payment and also filed a confirmation from the company, in our opinion the assessee has discharged onus cast upon him. Issue decides in favour of assessee Addition on account of difference in books of accounts – Assessee first produce provisional books - Subsequently audited books of accounts were furnished before AO after rectify the discrepancy – AO’s ground was that only after these discrepancies are pointed out and subsequent changes were made – Held that:-The entire explanation of the assessee has held that section 68 can be invoked only if some amount of money credited and there is no explanation or the explanation of the assessee is false. No amount was credited to the account of the assessee. The assessee submitted audited books of account subsequent to the mistake pointed out by the AO. Therefore invoking of section 68 by the AO is not correct. Issue decides against revenue Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 22,23,566/- as profit on suppressed sale of yarn.2. Addition of Rs. 74,75,000/- as unexplained credit under section 68.3. Addition of Rs. 16,30,178/- as unexplained investment in stock.4. Addition of Rs. 7,41,881/- for unexplained transactions with M/s. Neha Furnishings Ltd. and M/s. Gurusikh Trading Co.5. Addition of Rs. 7,49,503/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Rs. 22,23,566/- as profit on suppressed sale of yarn:The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading yarn and fabric, filed a return declaring a loss. A survey under section 133A led to reopening the assessment and adding Rs. 38,18,131/- for suppressed sale of yarn. The assessee contested the norm used by the Assessing Officer (AO) to compute production, arguing that the unit's old machinery and operational issues were not considered. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] adjusted the gross profit (GP) rate to 5% from 8.12%, reducing the addition to Rs. 22,23,566/-. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in adopting a 5% GP rate.2. Addition of Rs. 74,75,000/- as unexplained credit under section 68:The AO added Rs. 74,75,000/- as unexplained credit, questioning transactions with M/s. Kalavathy Finance Ltd. The assessee explained these as security deposits received through banking channels, supported by confirmations from M/s. Kalavathy Finance Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted Rs. 67,97,301/- of the addition, confirming only Rs. 6,50,000/- due to lack of confirmation for certain transactions. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing confirmations and bank transaction evidence.3. Addition of Rs. 16,30,178/- as unexplained investment in stock:The AO added Rs. 38,73,363/- for unexplained stock investment, based on discrepancies in fabric sales figures. The CIT(A) corrected the sale figure and recalculated the unexplained investment to Rs. 16,30,178/-. The Tribunal upheld this corrected figure, noting no material evidence to dispute the CIT(A)'s calculations.4. Addition of Rs. 7,41,881/- for unexplained transactions with M/s. Neha Furnishings Ltd. and M/s. Gurusikh Trading Co.:The AO added Rs. 7,41,881/- due to discrepancies in transactions with M/s. Neha Furnishings Ltd. and M/s. Gurusikh Trading Co., noting a lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, as the assessee failed to produce invoices or payment details. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the assessee had not substantiated the transactions.5. Addition of Rs. 7,49,503/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68:The AO added Rs. 7,49,503/- under section 68, citing discrepancies in provisional and audited books of account. The CIT(A) ruled that section 68 was inapplicable, as no cash receipt was involved, and the transactions were journal entries. The Tribunal agreed, noting no cash credit was recorded, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.Conclusion:All appeals by the assessee and the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decisions, confirming the adjusted additions and deletions based on the evidence and explanations provided.