Appeal partially allowed for Capital Gain, exemptions denied under Income-tax Act

Income Tax Officer Versus Shri Satinder Kumar

Income Tax Officer Versus Shri Satinder Kumar - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition by rejecting books of account and estimating net profit.
2. Deletion of addition on account of Capital Gain on the sale of a truck.
3. Deletion of addition by withdrawing exemption claimed under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Ground No. 1: Deletion of Addition by Rejecting Books of Account and Estimating Net Profit

The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete an addition of Rs. 21,44,399, which was made by the AO by rejecting the books of account and estimating the net profit at 5% of the turnover. The AO's rejection was based on the assessee's failure to produce relevant details of opening and closing stock and sustainable evidence for entries in the books of account.

The assessee argued that the books of account were regularly maintained and audited, and no discrepancies were noted by the AO. The CIT(A) observed that the AO's rejection was not justified as the relevant stock details were submitted but ignored by the AO. The CIT(A) held that the AO's action under section 44AF of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was misplaced, as this provision applies to retail businesses with turnover less than Rs. 40 lakh per annum. The CIT(A) noted that the profit estimation was inconsistent with the assessee's historical GP rates. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's ground as devoid of merits.

Ground No. 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Capital Gain on the Sale of Truck

The revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 6,41,287 added by the AO on account of Capital Gain from the sale of a truck. The AO claimed that the purchase of the truck was made to circumvent tax on capital gain and was a sham transaction, as the payment was made in cash and the truck was not transferred or registered in the assessee's name for over eight months.

The assessee contended that the purchase was genuine, supported by a cash receipt, and the AO allowed depreciation on the truck. The CIT(A) concluded that the transaction was not suspicious merely because of the cash payment and lack of immediate registration. The tribunal, however, found that the evidence provided was insufficient to conclusively establish the purchase and use of the truck for business purposes. The tribunal restored the issue to the AO for further examination and verification, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

Ground No. 3: Deletion of Addition by Withdrawing Exemption Claimed under Section 10(37)

The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting an addition of Rs. 11,54,243 by withdrawing the exemption claimed under section 10(37), as the assessee failed to provide sustainable evidence during assessment proceedings. The revenue contended that the exemption under section 10(37) was not applicable as the original compensation for the compulsorily acquired agricultural land was received before the provision's effective date.

The assessee cited the ITAT Chandigarh's judgment in Chura Ram vs ITO, which held that enhanced compensation received after 1.4.2005 for compulsorily acquired agricultural land is exempt under section 10(37). The tribunal agreed with this precedent, noting that the assessee met all conditions for exemption, including agricultural use of the land in the two years preceding the transfer. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's ground as devoid of merits.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes on ground no. 2 and dismissed on grounds no. 1 and 3. The tribunal's final order was pronounced on 08/05/2015.