2013 (9) TMI 410 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained income - Suppressed sale of oil recovered from the two ships - undisclosed sale of various scrap items. - Held that - While passing the order AO had not considered the details of oil sold, as pointed out by the FAA. Page no.1 of annexure-2 of the assessment order speaks about the item sold by the assessee company - AO has mentioned the sale of oil sold (in barrel),but in the narration he has mentioned furniture in place of furnace oil. - FAA has verified the sale bills along with the details of purchasers and quantity of oil sold - No additions - Decided in favour of assessee Suppressed sales of 4 Anchors - Held that - assessee had not challenged the ownership of anchors - anchors would have some realisable value. No ship will take a risk of not having a proper anchor, till it is dismatanled - FAA was very fair in his approach while deciding the appeal filed by the assessee. He has granted partial relief to the assessee and confirmed the addition that appears to be reasonable - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Suppressed sale of oil.
2. Suppressed sale of various spare items.
3. Suppressed sale of non-ferrous metal.
4. Suppressed sale of main engine.
5. Suppressed sale of cranes.
6. Suppressed sale of generator sets.
7. Suppressed sale of electrical cables and wires.
8. Realizable value of anchors.
9. Realizable value of furniture and wood.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Suppressed Sale of Oil:
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 43.7 lakhs to the income of the assessee, claiming the sale of 301 MT of oil was not shown in the books. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) found that the AO made a mistake in the narration and confirmed that 224 MT of oil was sold, with the remaining 76 MT used by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's order, finding no need for interference.

2. Suppressed Sale of Various Spare Items:
The AO made various additions for items allegedly not shown in the books, including Rs. 3.04 Crores for various spare items. The FAA deleted most additions, confirming some partially. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's decision, finding no concrete evidence from the AO to support the additions.

3. Suppressed Sale of Non-Ferrous Metal:
The AO added Rs. 1.75 Crores for non-ferrous metal allegedly not shown in the books. The FAA found the recovery and sale within industry norms and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's order, noting the AO's failure to provide positive evidence.

4. Suppressed Sale of Main Engine:
The AO added Rs. 15 lakhs for the sale of main engines not reflected in the books. The FAA found the engines were sold and recorded in Annexure-2 of the assessment order. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's decision, finding no need to disturb the findings.

5. Suppressed Sale of Cranes:
The AO added Rs. 40 lakhs for the sale of cranes not reflected in the books, estimating 17 cranes. The FAA found no basis for this estimation and noted that cranes were likely sold as scrap. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's order, agreeing with the lack of basis for the AO's estimation.

6. Suppressed Sale of Generator Sets:
The AO added Rs. 36 lakhs for generator sets not shown in the books. The FAA found all generator sets were accounted for and sold, directing the AO to delete the addition. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's decision, finding the AO's addition baseless.

7. Suppressed Sale of Electrical Cables and Wires:
The AO added Rs. 14 lakhs for electrical cables not shown in the books. The FAA found the assessee sold some cables and estimated additional recovery at 4 MT, upholding Rs. 1.76 lakhs and deleting the rest. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's order, finding the estimate reasonable.

8. Realizable Value of Anchors:
The AO added Rs. 4 lakhs for the sale of anchors not shown in the books. The FAA found three anchors with realizable value and restricted the addition to Rs. 3 lakhs. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's decision, finding it reasonable.

9. Realizable Value of Furniture and Wood:
The AO added Rs. 5 lakhs for furniture sold at firewood prices. The FAA agreed some items would fetch better prices and upheld the addition. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's order, finding the assessee's claim unreasonable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both the AO's and the assessee's appeals, upholding the FAA's decisions on all issues.