Tribunal decision: Assessee's appeal partly allowed, Revenue's appeal dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the admission of the late appeal by the assessee due to valid reasons, reduced the net profit rate to 6.51% from 8%, sustained the application of the higher rate, deleted the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS, allowed depreciation out of net profits, and agreed with the rejection of books of account by the AO. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, partly allowed the assessee's appeal, and pronounced the order on 19/10/2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admission of late appeal by the assessee.
2. Reduction of net profit rate from 10% to 8% by CIT(A).
3. Sustenance of the application of net profit rate of 8%.
4. Sustenance of addition of Rs. 1,18,342/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.
5. Allowance of depreciation out of net profits.
6. Rejection of books of account by AO.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admission of Late Appeal by the Assessee:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) should not have admitted the appeal filed late by more than six months. The CIT(A) justified the delay by stating that the father of the assessee was ill and required treatment at various hospitals, which was a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, finding the reasons for the delay reasonable.

2. Reduction of Net Profit Rate from 10% to 8% by CIT(A):
The AO applied a net profit rate of 10% after rejecting the books of account due to incomplete vouchers and bills. The CIT(A) reduced this rate to 8%, considering the past history where the assessee had declared net profit rates of 5.21% to 5.34% in previous years, which were accepted by the department. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rightly distinguished the case laws relied on by the AO and applied a balanced view, ultimately directing the AO to apply a net profit rate of 6.51%.

3. Sustenance of the Application of Net Profit Rate of 8%:
The assessee argued that the net profit rate of 8% applied by the CIT(A) was excessive and arbitrary. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had declared a progressive net profit rate of 5.51% for the year under consideration, a higher rate was justified due to the incomplete submission of vouchers and bills. The Tribunal decided that a 1% higher rate than the declared rate, i.e., 6.51%, would serve justice, balancing the need for proper bookkeeping deterrence and the assessee’s past history.

4. Sustenance of Addition of Rs. 1,18,342/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS:
The assessee contended that no further disallowance was warranted once the profits were estimated. The Tribunal agreed, citing various judgments that support the view that no additional disallowance should be made when income is estimated. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed this ground of appeal, deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

5. Allowance of Depreciation Out of Net Profits:
The Revenue argued that depreciation should not have been allowed. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to allow depreciation, referencing Circular No. 29D, dated 31.08.1965, which states that depreciation should be allowed even when profits are estimated. The Tribunal also cited the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in Lali Construction Co., which supports the allowance of depreciation when the required information is provided by the assessee.

6. Rejection of Books of Account by AO:
The AO rejected the books of account due to the assessee’s failure to produce complete vouchers and bills. The CIT(A) upheld this rejection. The Tribunal agreed with the rejection of the books, noting that the assessee did not produce complete vouchers and bills, justifying the AO’s action.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal by directing the AO to apply a net profit rate of 6.51% instead of 8% and deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The Cross Objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as they merely supported the CIT(A)’s order, which had already been addressed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 19/10/2016.

---