1998 (2) TMI 594 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of sec. 145 of the I.T. Act and net profit rate of 10% on gross receipts.
2. Treatment of cash credits and interest in the name of creditors.
3. Addition u/s. 40A(3) of the I.T. Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the application of sec. 145 of the I.T. Act and the imposition of a net profit rate of 10% on gross receipts. The AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee and estimated the net profit rate at 10%, disallowing claims for depreciation and interest to third parties. The CIT(A) held that the appellant did not maintain proper accounts, leading to the acceptance of the 10% net profit rate. However, the Tribunal noted that in such cases, depreciation and interest paid to third parties should be deducted before arriving at taxable income, following consistent principles. Therefore, the grounds related to this issue were governed by this finding, allowing deductions for depreciation and interest paid.

2. Regarding cash credits and interest in the name of creditors, specific cases were discussed. In one instance, a credit in the name of Smt. Kusumlata was added to total income, but the Tribunal found the addition unreasonable as the creditor's identity and the genuineness of the transaction were established beyond doubt. Similarly, another credit in the name of Shri Vijay Mohata was also deemed genuine despite discrepancies in withdrawal and deposit dates. Additionally, a credit in the name of Smt. Ritesh Lahoti was upheld as genuine, supported by bank drafts and confirmations from the creditor's parents. These additions were deleted based on the established credibility of the transactions and the supporting evidence provided.

3. The final issue revolved around the addition u/s. 40A(3) of the I.T. Act. The assessee argued against further disallowances when a 10% net profit rate was already applied. The Tribunal agreed, stating that when the net profit rate is imposed due to rejected books of accounts, additional disallowances from claimed expenses are not justified. Therefore, this ground of appeal was allowed, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal overall.