9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 774 - AT - Income TaxDetermination of profits in the business of wine - Held that - Income of the assessees in the line of liquor business has to be estimated at 5% cost of sales made by them - Decided against Revenue. Unexplained credit - Held that - Following Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif Vs. CIT 1963 (2) TMI 33 - SUPREME Court - The onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on assessee himself - If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the IT Act - The amounts of the cash credits could be assessed to tax as income from undisclosed sources in addition to the business income computed by estimate - The taxing authorities were not precluded from treating the amounts of the credit entries as income from undisclosed sources simply because the entries appeared in the books of a business whose income they had previously computed on a percentage basis - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of profits in the business of wines. 2. Deletion of addition under section 68 of the I.T. Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Profits in the Business of Wines: The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) regarding the estimation of profits for the assessee, a retail trader in liquor products, for the assessment year 2010-2011. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed the profit at 24% based on the Government of Andhra Pradesh's retailer margin guidelines and added the difference of Rs. 53,82,450/- as surplus sales to the assessee's declared gross sales. The CIT(A) directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 5% on the purchases or stock put for sale during the year, referencing decisions from the jurisdictional ITAT, specifically the cases of M/s. Kanaka Durga Wines and Amaravathi Wine Shop, which supported a 3% to 5% net profit margin. The CIT(A) justified the rejection of the assessee's books due to the non-furnishing of sale bills and emphasized that the estimation should be reasonable and comparable, aligning with the jurisdictional ITAT's decisions. The CIT(A) concluded that a 5% profit rate on purchases or stock put for sale was justified, ensuring the income already offered by the appellant was considered to avoid duplication. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the consistent acceptance of a 5% net profit margin by the coordinate benches in similar cases, such as ITO, Warangal vs. Shri P. Ramaiah and others. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed grounds No. 1 to 3 of the Revenue. 2. Deletion of Addition under Section 68 of the I.T. Act: The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 14,40,000/- under section 68, which the AO had treated as unexplained cash credits due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence for the partners' capital additions. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in Indwell Constructions vs. CIT and Maddi Sudarshanam Oil Co. vs. CIT, which held that once the books are rejected, authorities cannot rely on them for adding unexplained credits. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s application of these principles, noting that the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad and Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT established that the AO could tax both the estimated business income and the unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to prove the source of the credits and that the AO was justified in treating unexplained credits as taxable income. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO, granting the assessee another opportunity to explain the sources of the credits. If the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, the AO could make the addition under section 68. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the profit estimation while setting aside the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under section 68, directing the AO to re-examine the unexplained credits. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 23rd October, 2013.
|
