2019 (12) TMI 1112 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, directs deletion of additions by lower authorities

Smt. Parbati Das Versus ITO, Ward-2, Paradeep

Smt. Parbati Das Versus ITO, Ward-2, Paradeep - TMI Issues:1. Dispute over the method of estimating profits in a retail trading business.2. Addition made on account of closing stock without considering opening stock or providing a show cause notice.3. Addition of unexplained investment amount and justification of the source of income.Analysis:1. The first issue revolves around the dispute regarding the method of estimating profits in a retail trading business. The appellant argued against the weighted average method used by the authorities, stating that the turnover method was appropriate. The appellant's net profit was higher than the statutory minimum of 5%, and it was noted that no further addition was necessary as the appellant had already disclosed a higher percentage of net profit on the turnover, as required by section 44AF of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal allowed this ground of appeal, emphasizing that no additional addition was warranted.2. The second issue pertains to the addition made on account of closing stock without considering the opening stock or providing a show cause notice to the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted that under section 44AF of the Act, if the income is shown or estimated as per this provision, the appellant is not required to maintain any books of account. Therefore, any addition based on closing stock found during a survey was deemed unsustainable without considering the opening stock. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition related to closing stock, as no valid reason or show cause notice was provided to the appellant.3. The final issue involves the addition of an unexplained investment amount. The appellant provided detailed explanations regarding the sources of the investment, including funds accumulated over 15 years, sale of property, and inheritance from parents. The Tribunal considered various undisputed facts, such as the appellant being the sole legal heir of her parents and the income shown in previous returns. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had sufficient sources of funds for the investment and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of the unexplained investment amount. The Tribunal allowed this ground of appeal, emphasizing the appellant's established sources of funds.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all three issues, directing the deletion of the additions made by the lower authorities. The judgment provided detailed analyses of each issue, emphasizing the statutory provisions and factual explanations presented by the appellant to support their case.