2014 (4) TMI 521 - AT - Income Tax

Best judgement assessment - CIT(A) deleted addition made by Assessing Officer on account of bogus claim of shortage, difference in closing balance in account of IOC, cash payment of unexplained liability and estimated income from tanker lorry Deletion of additions u/s 44AE - Held that - once gross profit is estimated and books of accounts were rejected, there is no case for such an addition - In case of addition for bogus purchase, Assessing Officer himself has admitted in remand report that parties had confirmed sales Vis-a-vis addition made for difference in accounts of IOC Ltd. - CIT(Appeals) accepted claim of the assessee that balance-sheet filed alongwith return stood reconciled - As for addition made for unclaimed liability CIT(Appeals) had deleted after giving clear finding that it was a balance carried forward from an earlier year - As for addition made under section 44AE of Act, it is not disputed that lorry was utilized for business purposes and never given on hire - CIT(A) had deleted this addition rightly relying on decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Banwari Lal Banshidhar 1997 (5) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD High Court No reason to interfere with order of CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition made by Assessing Officer on account of bogus claim of shortage, difference in closing balance in the account of IOC, cash payment of unexplained liability, and estimated income from tanker lorry.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a trader of High Speed Diesel, declared a loss for the assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer estimated the gross profit rate at 1.83% due to the appellant's failure to produce books of accounts. This estimation was based on comparable cases. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this estimation, considering it justified.

2. The Assessing Officer made an addition for a difference in the closing balance in the accounts of M/s. IOC Ltd. The appellant had filed an incorrect balance sheet initially, but later clarified that two drafts were held by the appellant, explaining the discrepancy. The CIT(Appeals) accepted this explanation, and the Assessing Officer did not dispute it in the remand report. Therefore, this addition was deleted by the CIT(Appeals).

3. The Assessing Officer added an amount for unexplained liability of Rs.6,70,500, which the CIT(Appeals) found was carried forward from the previous financial year and thus not subject to addition in the current assessment. Consequently, this addition was deleted by the CIT(Appeals).

4. Regarding the addition made under section 44AE for a Tanker Lorry owned by the appellant, the CIT(Appeals) found that the lorry was used for the appellant's own business and not hired out. Citing a precedent from the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the CIT(Appeals) deleted this addition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(Appeals) and upheld the deletion of this addition.

5. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the reasoning provided by the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were found to be unjustified upon further examination.

This comprehensive analysis covers all the issues involved in the legal judgment, detailing the arguments presented, decisions made by the authorities, and the final outcome of the appeal.