2013 (6) TMI 594 - AT - Income Tax

Addition towards difference in the gross profit - additional income disclosed during survey - addition made towards excess stock - survey conducted in the case of the assessee u/s 133A - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Undisputedly, the assessee maintains books of accounts which were produced before AO during the course of assessment proceedings who did not find any defect or discrepancy in the books of accounts. Therefore, without rejecting the books results, AO cannot make addition on account of gross profit discrepancy. Further, the conclusion of AO to the effect that the gross profit declared by the assessee is very low is without any substance as it is evident from the comparable chart given the gross profit shown in the impugned assessment year is comparable to the gross profit shown for the preceding two assessment years. It is also a fact that the assessee has incorporated the excess stock found at the time of survey in the books of accounts and has declared profit thereon. Therefore, consideration of the excess stock found separately again would amount to taxing the same amount twice. No infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in deleting to the addition made on account of gross profit discrepancy or on account of excess stock. In favour of assessee. Unexplained deposits in the bank account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - As it is seen from the confirmation letter forming part of the order of the CIT (A) that the creditor is an income-tax assessee and all the details with regard to the advancement of amount of Rs.20 lakhs has been mentioned in the confirmation letter. The said confirmation letter not only establishes the identity of the creditor but also proves the genuineness of the transaction by giving the details of cheque Number, bank accounts etc., through which the transaction was made. It is also a fact that the amount of Rs.20 lakhs was also repaid by the assessee through cheque. Therefore there being no doubt with regard to creditworthiness, the creditor being an Income-tax assessee, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition towards difference in gross profit.
2. Addition towards excess stock admitted during survey.
3. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition towards difference in gross profit:
The department contended that the CIT (A) should have confirmed the addition of Rs. 9,16,281/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards the difference in gross profit. The AO found an excess stock of Rs. 11,98,865/- during a survey and noted that the gross profit, excluding the declared stock of Rs. 12 lakhs, was very low at 2.41%. The AO proposed to adopt an average gross profit rate of 17.04% based on the preceding three years, resulting in the addition. The assessee argued that the declared gross profit was comparable to previous years and that the AO did not find any defect in the books of accounts. The CIT (A) deleted the addition, noting that the excess stock was incorporated into the books, increasing the profit, and the AO did not reject the books of accounts or find any unaccounted income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, confirming that the addition was without basis and dismissing the department's appeal.

2. Addition towards excess stock admitted during survey:
The department argued that the CIT (A) should have confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,98,865/- towards excess stock admitted by the assessee during the survey. The AO added this amount, considering it as unaccounted purchase of goods. The assessee contended that the excess stock was already incorporated into the books and declared as income. The CIT (A) agreed, stating that adding the unaccounted stock again would amount to double addition. The Tribunal supported this view, confirming the deletion of the addition and dismissing the department's appeal.

3. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account:
In the case of another assessee, the department appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 20 lakhs made by the AO for unexplained deposits in the bank account. The AO observed deposits and withdrawals in the assessee's bank account and asked for an explanation. The assessee claimed the amount was received from M/s. Maphar Constructions but did not provide evidence initially. The CIT (A) accepted a confirmation letter from the creditor with details of the transaction, including PAN and cheque details, and deleted the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had established the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditor's creditworthiness. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT (A)'s decision and dismissed the department's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the department, confirming the deletions made by the CIT (A) on account of gross profit discrepancy, excess stock, and unexplained bank deposits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper accounting treatment, the necessity of rejecting books of accounts before making additions, and the requirement for concrete evidence to support claims of unexplained income.