2014 (10) TMI 265 - HC - Income Tax

Court rejects assessee's accounts, orders fresh proceedings for income estimation, citing natural justice violation.

M/s. Podikunju Musaliar Memorial Educational& Charitable Trust Chandanathope, Kollam Versus Commissioner of Income Tax

The Court upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to discrepancies and non-compliance with audit requirements. It found the ... Undisclosed investment and depreciation disallowed – Held that:- There was no reason to accept the contention raised by the appellant that the AO ought not to have been rejected the books of accounts - parties are in agreement that once the books of accounts are rejected by the AO, the income of the assessee can be estimated either by taking recourse to the orders pertaining to the previous assessment years or by relying on cases which are comparable in nature - The right of the assessee to have such an opportunity is statutorily recognized in Section 142(3) of the Income-tax Act and relying upon Yaggina Veeraraghavulu and Mavuleti Somaraju & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1980 (5) TMI 22 - DELHI High Court] - the estimation of income made by the AO without disclosing the materials relied on and also denying them an opportunity was not only in violation of the statutory provisions, but also in violation of the principles of natural justice - the proceedings will have to continue afresh from the stage of estimation of the income and the AO disclosing to the assessee the materials that are relied on by him and after affording the assessee an opportunity to rebut those materials – thus, the assessment order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for the limited purpose of estimating the income – Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Challenging orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10.- Rejection of books of accounts by Assessing Officer.- Estimation of income without disclosing materials to the assessee.- Addition of 30 lakhs to income for assessment year 2007-08.Analysis:1. The appeals were filed challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts of the assessee and estimated gross profit at 40% of gross receipts and net profit at 15%. Additionally, undisclosed investment and disallowed depreciation were noted.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax deleted the addition of undisclosed investment and allowed depreciation claimed by the assessee. However, the assessment orders were confirmed in all other respects.3. Both the Revenue and the assessee filed appeals against the orders of the first appellate authority before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals and partially allowed the assessee's appeal, leading to the current appeals challenging the Tribunal's orders.4. The first contention raised was the rejection of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer. The pre-assessment notice provided cogent reasons for rejecting the books, citing discrepancies in income, unexplained credits, and failure to comply with statutory audit requirements. The Court found no reason to accept the argument against the rejection of books.5. The second main contention was regarding the estimation of income without disclosing materials to the assessee for rebuttal. The Court held that the Assessing Officer's failure to disclose relied-upon materials and provide an opportunity for rebuttal violated statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The estimation of income was deemed unsustainable, requiring fresh proceedings with proper disclosure and opportunity for rebuttal.6. An additional issue involved the addition of 30 lakhs to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee claimed the amount was received in instalments towards fees, but failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. As a result, the Court confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and statutory appellate authorities.7. The Court set aside the assessment orders, except for the confirmed addition, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for proper estimation of income after disclosing relied-upon materials and providing the assessee with an opportunity to rebut. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.