2012 (8) TMI 268 - AT - Income Tax

Best Judgement assessment - rejection of books of accounts - estimation of income - assessee contesting claim of various expenses not allowed by CIT - Held that - It is found that direction of the CIT(A) to adopt 7% of the net profit on gross receipts is based on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Atulraj Builders Pvt. Limited. As CIT(A) has given reasons for his findings, no interference is called for. Further, when CIT(A) has directed to adopt the net profit rate of 7% , such estimation of profits covers all the expenses which are allowable u/s. 30 to section 37 of the Act i.e. all the related expenses are deemed to be allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of the rejection of books of accounts and application of net profit rate.
2. Allowance of bad debts claim.
3. Disallowance of interest payable to Bank of Baroda.
4. Estimation of profit at 7% instead of 10%.
5. Challenge to the relief on interest income on fixed deposits.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the rejection of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) and the subsequent application of a net profit rate of 10%. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the rejection based on inadequately supported expenses. However, the CIT(A) directed the A.O. to adopt a 7% profit rate based on a previous ITAT decision. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning sound and dismissed the grounds challenging this decision.

2. The second issue concerns the disallowance of the bad debts claim by the CIT(A). Although the claim was not raised in the original appeal grounds, the Tribunal noted that the estimated profit rate of 7% covered all allowable expenses. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the bad debts claim.

3. The third issue involves the disallowance of interest payable to Bank of Baroda. The A.O. rejected the claim due to pending legal proceedings, which the CIT(A) affirmed. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning, stating that the profit estimation already covered all related expenses, including the interest claim.

4. The next issue addresses the estimation of profit at 7% instead of the 10% applied by the A.O. The Tribunal had previously discussed and upheld this decision in the assessee's appeal, finding the CIT(A)'s direction logical and based on precedent. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's challenge on this matter.

5. The final issue pertains to the challenge by the Revenue regarding the relief granted on interest income from fixed deposits. The A.O. estimated interest receivable on fixed deposits, but the CIT(A) directed a reassessment based on actual interest received. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing evidence from the bank and dismissing the Revenue's challenge.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on various issues related to the assessment for the relevant year.