2000 (1) TMI 146 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Adjusts Expenses & Deductions, Dismisses Commission Claim

The Tribunal allowed adjustments for expenses related to unaccounted sales, reducing the net profit rate to 1.5%. It also permitted deductions for ... - Issues Involved:1. Treatment of Unaccounted Sales and Gross Profit Rate.2. Deduction of Expenses from Unaccounted Sales.3. Addition on Account of Peak Investment in Purchases.4. Legality and Validity of Statements Recorded During Post-Search Enquiries.5. Applicability of Section 40A(3) in Block Assessment.6. Addition on Account of Commission Receipts.Summary:1. Treatment of Unaccounted Sales and Gross Profit Rate:The AO confronted the assessee with unaccounted sales figures and proposed to apply a G.P. rate of 7%. The assessee did not deny the unaccounted sales but claimed that the undisclosed income should be reduced by expenses incurred in making these sales. The AO rejected this claim, stating that the expenses were not supported by reliable documents and that the G.P. rate of 7% had already accounted for these expenses. The Tribunal, however, found that the AO's reasoning was flawed and allowed the adjustment of expenses, estimating the net profit at 1.5%, which aligns with the assessee's historical profit rates.2. Deduction of Expenses from Unaccounted Sales:The assessee claimed deductions for expenses such as seed cleaning, warehousing, and packing charges. The AO disputed the correctness of these expenses and did not allow the deduction, arguing that these expenses were already accounted for in the regular books. The Tribunal found that the AO did not properly scrutinize the seized documents and allowed the deduction of these expenses, resulting in a net profit rate of 1.5%.3. Addition on Account of Peak Investment in Purchases:The AO estimated the peak investment in purchases based on unaccounted sales, resulting in an addition of Rs. 26,87,340. The assessee argued that most purchases were on credit and provided evidence of trade creditors. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based on mere presumption and not supported by specific evidence. The Tribunal deleted the addition, noting that the assessee's explanation of credit purchases was substantiated by the seized documents.4. Legality and Validity of Statements Recorded During Post-Search Enquiries:The assessee retracted statements made during post-search enquiries, claiming they were not legally valid. The Tribunal observed that while admissions are substantive evidence, they are not conclusive and can be rebutted. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given proper opportunity to prove the incorrectness of the statements and that the AO did not provide corroborative evidence to support the admissions.5. Applicability of Section 40A(3) in Block Assessment:The AO made an addition under s. 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit. The Tribunal referred to the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which held that no disallowance could be made under s. 40A(3) when income is determined based on gross profit rate. The Tribunal deleted the addition, aligning with the High Court's ruling.6. Addition on Account of Commission Receipts:The assessee did not press this ground during the hearing, and the Tribunal dismissed it as not pressed.Separate Judgment:The learned JM disagreed with the findings and conclusions of the learned AM, particularly on the issues of the G.P. rate and peak investment in purchases. The JM upheld the AO's application of a 7% G.P. rate and the addition for peak investment, emphasizing the validity of the assessee's admissions and the lack of evidence to support the claimed expenses and credit purchases. The matter was referred to a third member, who concurred with the AM's view, leading to a majority decision in favor of the assessee.