2012 (2) TMI 467 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - estimation of income by applying flat rate of gross profit - Held that - Certain defects were found in the account books of the assessee and therefore the same was rejected and flat rate of gross profit was applied by the Department. We find that it is well settled that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed merely on the ground that there were defects in the account books of the assessee and the account books were rejected and the flat rate of the gross profit is applied to arrive at the gross profits of the assessee. Merely because in the case of the assessee a survey action was undertaken it does not follow that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposable on the estimated trading profit of the assessee. Accordingly we find no justification for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue which is cancelled. Issue of transaction with SC - assessee retained 3 per cent. on account of sales tax - Held that - We find that the facts of the case may justify the confirmation of the addition made on this count by the Revenue authorities but are not sufficient for sustaining the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that no evidence or material was brought on record by the Department to suggest that the assessee has retained 3 per cent. or part thereof on account of sales tax with it. The assessee has filed an explanation which could not be termed as not bona fide. In the absence of any corroborative evidence to prove the charge that any part of 3 per cent. being sales tax on the transaction remained with assessee we are unable to sustain the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee which is cancelled. Unexplained cash credits under section 68 - Held that - We find that there was sufficient reason for the assessee for its filing the necessary evidences before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In the facts of the case we consider that it shall be in the interest of justice to set aside the issue of addition of 8, 09, 100 under section 68 to the file of the AO with direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct accordingly. Excessive or unreasonable payments of job work charges under section 40A(2)(b) -Held that - We find that the assessee could not lead any evidence to show that the payment for job work were not excessive or unreasonable. The assessee has not given any comparable figures of job work rate prevailing in the market with regard to other parties in similar line of the trade for the relevant period. The assessee has given job work only to M/s. Krishna Organics and M/s. Jyoti Industries and both these firms are admittedly the sister-concerns of the assessee. The comparison of job work rate with the earlier year is not relevant. What is more relevant is the prevailing market rate of similar service rendered by the parties to the unrelated business firm. In the facts of the case we hold that the pre-dominance of probabilities is against the assessee and accordingly the disallowance made by the AO under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act is confirmed

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2001-02.
2. Delay in filing the appeal for the assessment year 2004-05.
3. Addition of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act.
4. Disallowance of job work charges under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.
5. Ad hoc disallowance of dalali/commission expenses.
6. Ad hoc disallowance of trade discount expenses.
7. Late deposit of provident fund.
8. Ad hoc disallowance of telephone expenses.
9. Ad hoc disallowance of vehicle expenses and depreciation.
10. Addition under section 14A of the Act.

Analysis:

1. Validity of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2001-02:
The penalty was imposed on two issues - estimation of income using a flat rate of gross profit and transactions with a specific entity. The Tribunal found that penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed solely based on defects in the account books or estimation methods. Regarding the transactions, the addition was made on presumption without concrete evidence, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.

2. Delay in Filing Appeal for AY 2004-05:
The appellant filed a condonation petition citing health issues of the managing partner to explain the delay. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, condoned the delay and allowed the appeal to proceed.

3. Addition of Unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68:
The Tribunal set aside the addition of unexplained cash credits under section 68, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present evidence.

4. Disallowance of Job Work Charges under Section 40A(2)(b):
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of job work charges as the assessee failed to provide evidence that the payments were not excessive or unreasonable, especially when given to sister concerns without market rate comparisons.

5. Ad Hoc Disallowance of Dalali/Commission Expenses:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the disallowance of commission expenses as the payments were made through proper channels, confirmed by payees with valid PAN numbers, and served a genuine business purpose.

6. Ad Hoc Disallowance of Trade Discount Expenses:
The Tribunal dismissed the disallowance of trade discount expenses, noting that the discounts were given to trading parties for business purposes, supported by bills and accounts, and not requiring a specific percentage or negotiation evidence.

7. Late Deposit of Provident Fund, Telephone Expenses, and Vehicle Expenses:
The grounds related to late deposit of provident fund, telephone expenses, and vehicle expenses were not pressed by the assessee and were therefore dismissed.

8. Addition under Section 14A of the Act:
The Tribunal dismissed the addition under section 14A as the issue was not raised before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or as an additional ground, leading to its dismissal without adjudication.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2001-02 and partly allowed the appeal for AY 2004-05, addressing various issues related to penalties, disallowances, delays, and additions under different sections of the Income-tax Act.

← Previous Next →