2023 (7) TMI 132 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee in appeal against income estimation, citing lack of basis.

Nareshbhai Vijaybhai Gamit Versus I.T.O., Ward-1, Bardoli.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it unintentional. It disagreed with the Assessing Officer's estimation of the assessee's ... Estimation of income - applying commission @ 8% of total cash deposit - Non rejecting books of account - HELD THAT:- As the assessee has proved the fact that he is engaged in business of recharge of prepaid coupons of Idea Cellular Limited in the name of Vatshal Enterprises. The assessee has also placed on record the TDS certificate in the form of 26AS wherein total tax is deducted at source. There is no dispute about business of assessee. The assessee furnished complete books of account. The books of account of assessee was not rejected. The nature of business of assessee is also not doubted. The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to estimate the income in respect of cash deposit between 01/06/2016 to 22/12/2016, which is already offered by assessee by including its commission income in his commission received @ 2% in his return of income. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the commission without any basis. If the direction of ld. CIT(A) is followed, it would amount to double taxation of the same income. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in PCIT Vs. Marg Ltd. [2017 (7) TMI 823 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that profit of assessee cannot be estimated without rejecting its books of account. Thus no justification in the direction of ld. CIT(A) to further estimate the income on the deposits between 01/06/2016 to 22/12/2016 which is not in consonance with the decision in PCIT Vs Marg Limited (supra). Even otherwise, the assessee has already included his commission income while filing return of income. In view of aforesaid discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Legitimacy of the estimation of income by the Assessing Officer (AO).3. Validity of the direction to estimate commission income by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).4. Consideration of the nature of the appellant's business and market practices.5. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C.6. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A.Summary:1. Condonation of Delay:The assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 59 days, attributing it to the order being delivered to the spam folder of his email. The Tribunal found the delay to be neither intentional nor deliberate and thus condoned it, allowing the appeal to proceed.2. Estimation of Income by AO:The AO estimated the assessee's commission income at 8% of the total cash deposit of Rs. 1.68 crore, amounting to Rs. 13,50,745/-. The assessee had already declared Rs. 2,87,352/- as commission income. The AO's estimation was based on the absence of a contract agreement with Idea Cellular Limited and incomplete transaction details. The AO added the difference of Rs. 10,63,393/- to the assessee's total income.3. Direction by NFAC:The NFAC confirmed the AO's estimation but directed it to be limited to the period between 01/06/2016 to 22/12/2016. The NFAC acknowledged that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, such as the TDS certificate and monthly transaction reports, but still upheld the estimation partially.4. Nature of Business and Market Practices:The Tribunal noted that the assessee, engaged in the business of mobile recharge coupons, had provided comprehensive details, including bank statements and cash flow statements. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had not rejected the books of accounts nor pointed out any defects, making the estimation without basis and unjustified.5. Charging of Interest:The judgment did not provide specific details on the Tribunal's stance regarding the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C, implying no separate contention on this issue.6. Penalty Proceedings:Similarly, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A was not elaborated upon, suggesting it was not a focal point of the Tribunal's decision.Conclusion:The Tribunal found no justification for the estimation of income by the AO or the partial confirmation by the NFAC. It highlighted that the profit of the assessee cannot be estimated without rejecting the books of account, as upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in PCIT Vs. Marg Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee.