2010 (2) TMI 719 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of accounts and addition in gross profit on the basis of low gross profit ratio. - disallowance of depreciation at higher rate of 50 per cent - disallowanc the brokerage expenditure on the basis of its genuineness and legitimate. - Rejection the claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(4). Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Rejection of Accounts - Held that - The AO had not pointed out any adverse reporting by the statutory auditors in the audited financial statements. This means that these financial statements are based on the entries passed in the books of account which were duly audited by the auditors and, therefore, the audited financial statements have to be accepted as the final result of the books of account claimed to have been lost in the flood. The decline in gross profit rate is accepted in last year scrutiny assessment also. decided in favor of Assessee. Disallowance of depreciation. - Held that - Denial of benefit of higher rate of depreciation in respect of pre-weaving machines on the basis of same issue has been decided from last year by Tribunal( not covered the said block 111(6) and he, therefore, allowed depreciation at normal rates only). Decided against Assessee Disallowance of Brokerage. - Held that - Assessee is in yarn business where maximum business is done through brokers.Therefore AO are not justified in disallowing the brokerage expenses. decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance u/s 80-IB(4). - Held that - denial of deduction on technical ground is not justified. We direct the AO to grant the opportunity to the assessee-company to file the audit report in Form No. 10CCB. Remand back to AO. Peanlty u/s 271(1)(c) - held that - If the Tribunal has confirmed the addition that does not mean that the assessee has concealed the income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. When a disallowance is made merely on an estimate basis, the penalty cannot automatically be imposed. decided in favour of Assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Accounts and Addition on Account of Low Gross Profit Ratio.
2. Disallowance of Depreciation at Higher Rate.
3. Disallowance of Brokerage Expenditure.
4. Rejection of Deduction Claim under Section 80-IB(4).
5. Charging of Interest under Section 234B.
6. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Accounts and Addition on Account of Low Gross Profit Ratio:

The assessee challenged the rejection of its accounts and the addition of Rs. 36,95,647 due to a low gross profit ratio. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed a decline in the gross profit ratio compared to previous years and demanded explanations and documentary evidence. The assessee claimed that its books of account were lost in a flood and provided alternative explanations for the decline in profit margins, including technological changes and increased competition. However, the AO rejected these explanations, citing inconsistencies in the storage location of the books and records.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including an FIR and an affidavit, to support the claim of loss due to the flood. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation and concluded that the lower authorities were not justified in rejecting the accounts and making the addition. The addition was directed to be deleted.

2. Disallowance of Depreciation at Higher Rate:

The assessee claimed higher depreciation on texturising and twisting machines, which the AO disallowed, arguing these machines were not covered under the specified block for higher depreciation. This disallowance was upheld by the CIT(A) and was consistent with the previous year's decision. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, rejected the assessee's appeal on this ground.

3. Disallowance of Brokerage Expenditure:

The AO disallowed Rs. 6,21,130 out of the claimed brokerage expenses due to insufficient evidence and non-compliance from brokers during verification. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee provided complete details of brokers and payments were made through cheques after deducting TDS. Given the reasonable brokerage amount compared to the previous year and the circumstances post-flood, the Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified and deleted it.

4. Rejection of Deduction Claim under Section 80-IB(4):

The AO rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IB(4) because it was not claimed in the original return, and the CIT(A) upheld this decision. The Tribunal, referencing a decision by the Madras High Court, held that statutory deductions should be granted even if not claimed in the original return when the AO enhances income. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the assessee to file the requisite audit report and grant the deduction if eligible.

5. Charging of Interest under Section 234B:

This issue was deemed consequential. The Tribunal directed the AO to charge interest under Section 234B after giving effect to its order.

6. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):

The AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,48,640 for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty for gross profit and brokerage additions but deleted it for depreciation disallowance. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that additions based on estimation do not automatically justify penalties. The Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate concealment or false explanations by the assessee and directed the AO to delete the penalty.

Conclusion:

The quantum appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, and the penalty appeal was fully allowed. The Tribunal's order emphasized the importance of considering genuine circumstances and evidence provided by the assessee, especially in cases involving natural calamities and estimation-based additions.

← Previous Next →