9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Unexplained investment in power looms. 2. Rental income from leasing power looms. 3. Undisclosed and unexplained amounts of loans and advances. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Unexplained Investment in Power Looms: The case involved a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the assessee's premises, revealing undisclosed investments in power looms. The assessee admitted to investing Rs. 28,80,000 in 72 power looms, which was not disclosed in their returns. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered this investment as unexplained and brought it to tax for the assessment year 2002-03. The assessee contended that the power looms were purchased before 1999, supported by registered purchase deeds of sheds and electricity bills. However, the AO rejected this claim due to a lack of purchase bills for the looms. The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence and the statement recorded under section 132(4) supported the assessee's claim that the looms were purchased prior to 1999. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition related to 40 power looms, as they were acquired before April 1, 1999, and directed the deletion of the addition for the remaining 32 power looms as well, as the relevant assessment years were not under appeal. 2. Rental Income from Leasing Power Looms: The AO assessed rental income from leasing 72 power looms at Rs. 1,200 per loom per month, based on a statement recorded on February 4, 2005. The assessee initially declared a rental income of Rs. 500 per loom per month. The Tribunal found no basis for either statement but referred to seized documents showing varying rental incomes. The average gross monthly rent per loom was calculated at Rs. 894. The Tribunal allowed a 20% deduction for expenses incurred in earning this rental income, in addition to the depreciation already allowed by the AO. 3. Undisclosed and Unexplained Amounts of Loans and Advances: The AO observed that the assessee disclosed Rs. 17,28,000 as undisclosed income in a statement under section 132(4) but did not offer this amount in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A. The assessee claimed that loans advanced in the assessment year 2002-03 were repaid and re-advanced in the assessment year 2004-05. The AO rejected this explanation due to a lack of evidence of repayment. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's cash book showed receipts that could support the claim of re-advancing loans. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue, considering the cash flow statement and additional income declared in earlier years, and to give the benefit of telescoping if the assessee satisfactorily explained the availability of funds for advancing loans. Other Appeals: The other appeals involved similar issues of undisclosed investment in power looms and rental income from leasing looms. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to investment in power looms and determined the rental income in the manner explained in the case of Shri Masoomkhan. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, directing the deletion of additions related to unexplained investment in power looms and determining rental income with appropriate deductions. The issue of loans and advances was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication. The order was pronounced on July 16, 2008.
|
