2012 (11) TMI 745 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Decision: Deletions Upheld, Additions Dismissed, Expenses Disallowed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions concerning unrecorded advances and estimated sales due to lack of evidence and ex-accountant's manipulative ... Addition in respect of share capital received from subscribers, denying deduction u/s 80IA - assessee has received share application money in cash – alleged that names of the persons are not genuine and it is the unexplained money of the assessee – Held that:- Assessee has discharged its onus by proving the identity of subscribers - once the existence of the investor/share subscribers is proved, onus shifts on the revenue to establish that either the share applicants are bogus or the impugned money belongs to the assessee company itself. Once the confirmation letters are filed, no addition can be made on account of share application money in the hands of the company – In favor of assessee Interest u/s 234B – nature – Held that:- No specific section has been mentioned for charging of interest and merely it has been mentioned that charge interest if any, as per law. However, since the issue of share application has been decided in favour of the assessee and the addition made u/s 68 of the Act has been deleted, therefore, charging of interest is consequential in nature, meaning thereby that it is not leviable/chargeable - if the Assessing Officer was apprehensive of any mala fide on the part of share applicant, he was at liberty to reopen their individual assessments, therefore, there is no justification to make the addition in the hands of the assessee – In favor of assessee Disallowance of Rs. 6,000/- out of telephone and communication expenses, Rs. 5,000/- out of vehicle repair and maintenance expenses, Rs. 3,000/- out of vehicle running expenses and Rs. 6,000/- out of travelling expenses – Held that:- Disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer as necessary bills and vouchers were not filed by the assessee, therefore, expenses were not fully verifiable - no evidence was filed in support of its claim – disallowance deleted Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition on account of unrecorded advances received from customers.2. Deletion of addition by rejecting books of account and applying Gross Profit (G.P.) rate on estimated sales.3. Directions under section 292C of the Income Tax Act.4. Sustenance of addition in respect of share capital received from subscribers.5. Disallowance of ad hoc additions on account of telephone and communication expenses, vehicle repair and maintenance expenses, vehicle running expenses, and traveling expenses.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unrecorded Advances Received from CustomersThe revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 12,34,489/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) due to unrecorded advances from customers. The assessee provided necessary details for these advances, which were not verified or rebutted by the A.O. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found that many entries were linked to specific individuals and were against the supply of goods. Police complaints against the ex-accountant, who allegedly manipulated records, were also filed. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition.2. Deletion of Addition by Rejecting Books of Account and Applying G.P. Rate on Estimated SalesThe revenue challenged the deletion of additions made by the A.O. by rejecting the books of account and estimating sales with a higher G.P. rate. The A.O. estimated total sales and applied a higher G.P. rate, resulting in significant additions for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05. The CIT(A) rejected the A.O.'s estimation, noting that no specific defects were identified in the books of account and that the rough entries used for estimation were not substantiated. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the suspicion arose from manipulated entries by the ex-accountant, and the police complaint supported the assessee's position.3. Directions Under Section 292C of the Income Tax ActThe revenue argued that the CIT(A) should have issued directions under section 292C if no defects were found in the books of account. The Tribunal found this argument academic since the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was based on the finding that the A.O.'s estimations were speculative. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting no infirmity in not issuing directions under section 292C.4. Sustenance of Addition in Respect of Share Capital Received from SubscribersThe assessee appealed against the sustenance of an addition of Rs. 8,48,400/- related to share capital received from subscribers. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in a similar case (STL Extrusion (P) Limited), where it was held that once the identity and source of the subscribers are established, no addition can be made under section 68. The Tribunal found that the same subscribers were involved in the current case and had been previously found genuine. Thus, the addition was unjustified, and the Tribunal allowed the appeal on this ground.5. Disallowance of Ad Hoc Additions on Account of Various ExpensesThe assessee also contested ad hoc disallowances made by the A.O. for telephone and communication expenses, vehicle repair and maintenance expenses, vehicle running expenses, and traveling expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain these disallowances, noting that the assessee failed to provide necessary bills and vouchers to verify the expenses. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision on this matter.ConclusionThe Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals and partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The key findings were:- The deletion of additions related to unrecorded advances and estimated sales was upheld due to lack of evidence and the manipulative actions of the ex-accountant.- The addition related to share capital was deleted based on established jurisprudence that once the identity and source are proven, no addition under section 68 is warranted.- The ad hoc disallowances for various expenses were sustained due to insufficient evidence provided by the assessee.