9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 214 - AT - Income TaxCIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 144 - Held that - As the assessee did not produce any books of account before the AO despite number of notices issued seeking various details and documents as a result assessment was completed u/s 144 - AO attributed 10% of the stock of glass sold outside the books by way of profit while the CIT(A) without giving an opportunity to the AO reduced the addition by 50% on the ground that the business of trading in glass was discontinued. There is nothing to suggest as to whom the stock was sold and what was the margin- Despite being fully aware that assessment was completed in this case u/s 144 CIT(A) did not allow any opportunity to the AO before reducing the addition by 50% or deleting the addition on account of commission from trading in shares or allowing telescoping the income on sale of glass and returned income, against unexplained cash deposited in the bank. CIT(A) while allowing set off of amount of Rs. 2 lacs on account of sale of old stock of glass and returned income of Rs. 5,06,170/- did not refer to any evidence that sale of old glass or returned income had any nexus with the cash deposited in the bank account ,especially when the assessee did not produce relevant books of account - order of the CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision - decided in favour of revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 11,523/- on account of profit on sale of Rs. 2,30,460/- by applying a profit rate of 10%. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 4,25,075/- on account of commission from trading of shares. 3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 5,06,170/- out of Rs. 58,55,500/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Profit on Sale The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act due to the persistent non-compliance of the assessee. The AO added 10% of the amount of Rs. 2,30,460/- as profit on the sale of glass, resulting in an addition of Rs. 23,046/-. The CIT(A) reduced this addition by 50%, estimating the income on sale of glass at 5%, considering it was old stock. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) was not justified in reducing the addition without giving an opportunity to the AO and without any evidence as to whom the stock was sold and what the margin was. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not allow any opportunity to the AO before reducing the addition and did not ascertain the complete facts. Thus, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. Issue 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Commission from Trading of Shares The AO noticed that the assessee received an amount of Rs. 4,00,998/- from M/s Best Bull Stock (P) Ltd. on account of commission on trading in shares, and TDS of Rs. 24,077/- was deducted. Since the assessee claimed the TDS credit but did not declare the corresponding commission income, an addition of Rs. 4,25,075/- was made. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the commission income of Rs. 1,14,286/- was duly reflected after deducting expenses. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without examining the nature and genuineness of the expenses and without giving an opportunity to the AO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not allow any opportunity to the AO and did not ascertain the complete facts, thus remanding the issue back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. Issue 3: Deletion of Addition on Account of Cash Deposits in Bank Account The AO noticed cash deposits totaling Rs. 58,55,500/- in the assessee's bank accounts and added the amount as investment out of undisclosed sources since the assessee did not explain the source of these deposits. The CIT(A) concluded that Rs. 26,85,000/- out of the total deposits did not pertain to the year under consideration and allowed set off for Rs. 2,00,000/- from the sale of old stock of glass and Rs. 5,06,170/- from the income declared. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) allowed the set off without any evidence of a nexus between the amounts and without giving an opportunity to the AO. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not allow any opportunity to the AO and did not ascertain the complete facts. Hence, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issues back for reconsideration, directing the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after allowing sufficient opportunity to both parties and keeping in mind the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
|
