2017 (2) TMI 404 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's Appeal Dismissed, Commissioner's Decisions Upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decisions on both issues. The deletion of the addition under Section 41(1) was ... G.P. rate determination - CIT-A reduced rate 20.78% from the gross profit rate of 25% applied by AO - Held that:- Rate of 25% applied by the Assessing Officer was without any comparable case, whereas the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has applied the gross profit rate shown by the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year. We find that learned Senior Departmental Representative could not controvert the fact that there is no material change in the business activity of the assessee in the year under consideration as compared to the immediately preceding year. As regard to the arguments of learned Authorized Representative of the assessee, we find that the assessee has neither filed any cross objection or appeal contesting the issue of rejection of books of accounts and not taken any additional ground in this respect and therefore the arguments of learned Authorized Representative, not to reject the books of accounts, cannot be considered. The findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute are well reasoned. Addition u/s 41(1) - cessation/remission of liability in respect of two creditors - Held that:- Trading liability of both the parties, i.e, M/s. Fastech Telecommunication Private Limited and M/s Scientech Technology Private Limited are appearing as opening balance in the Ledger accounts of the parties in the books of accounts the assessee irrespective of the fact that in the books of accounts of the parties the balances of the assessee are shown as nil. Thus, it is clear that in books of account of the assessee, liability has not been remitted or ceased to exist. Secondly, from the nil opening balances in ledger accounts of the assessee in the books of accounts of those parties, it manifests that the liability has been either paid or waived in earlier years and not in the year under consideration. Thus, it is evident that the liabilities of both the parties have not been remitted by the assessee in its books of accounts at least in the year under consideration and no benefit has been obtained in respect of the trading liabilities, therefore, the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act are not applicable in the facts of the assessee in the year under consideration. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act on account of cessation/remission of liabilities.2. Reduction of Gross Profit (GP) rate from 25% to 20.78%.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition under Section 41(1):The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,56,54,400/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to cessation/remission of liability in respect of two creditors. The AO observed discrepancies in the balance sheets of the assessee and the creditors, noting that the creditors did not reflect the same liabilities in their books. The AO concluded that the liabilities had ceased to exist and treated the opening balances as remission/cessation of liabilities.The assessee argued that the liabilities were genuine and had not ceased or been remitted. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's explanation, emphasizing that mere discrepancies in the creditors' books do not constitute cessation of liability. The Commissioner also noted that the liabilities were created based on valid invoices and had not been discharged or waived by the creditors.The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the liabilities were genuine and had not ceased to exist in the assessee's books. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works, which held that unilateral entries by the debtor do not constitute cessation of liability. The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Section 41(1) were not applicable as the liabilities had not been remitted or ceased in the year under consideration.2. Reduction of Gross Profit Rate:The Revenue also contested the reduction of the Gross Profit (GP) rate from 25% to 20.78% by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The AO had applied a GP rate of 25% due to discrepancies in the assessee's books, such as non-maintenance of a stock register and unverified payments to creditors. The Commissioner, however, reduced the GP rate to 20.78%, which was consistent with the previous year's rate, arguing that there were no significant changes in the business operations.The Tribunal supported the Commissioner's decision, noting that the AO had applied the 25% rate without any comparable cases. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had reasonably applied the GP rate based on the previous year's figures, and there was no material change in the business activities to justify a higher rate. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground, affirming the Commissioner's findings.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decisions on both issues. The deletion of the addition under Section 41(1) was justified as the liabilities had not ceased or been remitted, and the reduction of the GP rate was reasonable based on the previous year's figures. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's findings and ruled in favor of the assessee.