2018 (10) TMI 1598 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decisions on Capital Introduction, GP Rate, and Past Performance

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all three issues. The Tribunal found that the assessee adequately ... Addition on account of capital introduction from undisclosed sources - CIT-A deleted the addition - Held that:- We find that the assessee had duly reconciled and explained the introduction of capital of ₹ 39,10,000/- in his personal balance sheet and that it indeed formed part of the additional income of ₹ 70,00,000/- disclosed at the time of survey. The Ld. CIT(A) was therefore right in observing that assessee was able to explain the entries in his balance sheet and that the addition of ₹ 39,10,000/- made by the AO was unwarranted. - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of unaccounted transportation expenses - expenses found recorded in the material impounded in the course of survey - assessee submitted that when the books of account of the assessee are rejected and the Gross Profit rate is estimated, no other additions by making specific disallowance of the expenses could be made - Held that:- It is noted that there is no dispute with regard to the rejection of books of accounts. We are of the considered view that when the GP rate is applied by rejecting the books result, no further addition on account of any item of specific expenses are required to be made because the books of account could not be relied for the purpose of completing the assessment of the assessee and it is for that reason that the AO has resorted to estimation of profit earned by the assessee on the overall sales - Decided against revenue. Estimating the GP rate at 1% instead of 1.5% as estimated by the AO - Held that:- It is noted that the income-tax assessments for the earlier years were framed u/s 143(3) and in those years the trading results of the assessee had been accepted by the Department. From the chart submitted before us, we find that the assessee has disclosed the fair rate of gross profit in comparison to the earlier years. In the circumstances the profit declared by the assessee in earlier years cannot be brushed aside for estimating the profit of the relevant year until and unless, there are changes in the facts and circumstances or the AO brings any results of comparable cases to justify his action, which is not the case here in hand - we find merit in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in estimating the profit at 1% after taking into consideration the profit of earlier years declared by assessee.- Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition on account of capital introduction from undisclosed sources.2. Deletion of addition on account of unaccounted transportation expenses.3. Estimation of Gross Profit (GP) rate.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Capital Introduction from Undisclosed Sources:The first issue pertains to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 31,90,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of capital introduction from undisclosed sources. The assessee, engaged in trading commodities, was subjected to survey operations under section 133A, where evidence of sales and purchases outside the books was found. The assessee declared additional income of Rs. 70,00,000/- post-survey. During the assessment, the AO noted a credit of Rs. 31,90,000/- in the assessee's personal balance sheet, which the assessee explained as part of the additional income declared. The AO, however, added back the amount, holding that the assessee failed to substantiate its source. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, explaining that the cash deposits in the savings account were withdrawals from the business to avoid bank charges and were subsequently transferred to the business account. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had adequately reconciled the capital introduction and the additional income declared during the survey. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had duly reconciled and explained the introduction of capital, which formed part of the additional income disclosed.2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unaccounted Transportation Expenses:The second issue involves the deletion of an addition of Rs. 25,70,949/- made on account of unaccounted transportation expenses. During the survey under section 133A, evidence of unaccounted sales and purchases was found, and the assessee disclosed a profit of Rs. 70,00,000/-. The AO rejected the books of accounts and estimated a higher profit, making a specific addition for unaccounted transportation expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, reasoning that once the books are rejected and Gross Profit (GP) is estimated, no further specific disallowance of expenses is warranted. The Tribunal agreed with this view, citing precedents such as CIT vs. Agarwal Engg & Co. Ltd, CIT Vs B.N. Muttin, and Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT, which support the principle that no further specific additions should be made when profits are estimated after rejecting the books of accounts.3. Estimation of Gross Profit (GP) Rate:The third issue concerns the estimation of the GP rate at 1% instead of 1.5% as estimated by the AO. The AO rejected the books of accounts due to the absence of stock registers and other discrepancies, estimating the GP rate at 1.5%. The CIT(A), however, reduced the GP rate to 1%, considering the past history of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not provide cogent reasons or comparable cases to justify a higher GP rate. The Tribunal found that the GP rate declared by the assessee was consistent with previous years and that the CIT(A)'s estimation was fair and reasonable.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all three issues. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the capital introduction, that no further specific disallowances were warranted once the GP rate was estimated, and that the CIT(A)'s estimation of the GP rate at 1% was justified based on the assessee's past performance and lack of contrary evidence from the AO.