2014 (5) TMI 547 - AT - Income Tax

Invocation of section 145(3) of the Act - Disallowance of interest expenses - Addition made u/s 68 of the Act Unexplained cash credits Held that - There is no clarity on facts relating to the details of the additions made in the substantive assessment either of the assessee or of others, if any - it is an undisputed fact that the assessment is a protective assessment- In the remand proceedings, AO shall examine all the above contentions of the assessee and examine afresh the applicability of the provisions of section 145(3) and consequent best judgment assessment, if any - So far as the additional grounds are concerned, it would be required to be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Invocation of section 145(3) of the Act and estimation of profits.
2. Disallowance of interest expenses.
3. Addition of unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act.

Issue 1: Invocation of section 145(3) of the Act and estimation of profits:
The appellant, a builder and developer, had two projects - "City Gem" and "City Dreams." The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked section 145(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-2007, disputing the method of recognizing income for the projects. The AO rejected the appellant's "project completion method" in favor of the "percentage completion method" and estimated the income from construction activities at Rs. 95 lakhs. The appellant contested this, citing consistent use of the project completion method and lack of substantive additions in previous assessments. The first appellate authority partially ruled against the appellant. The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO for a fresh examination of the applicability of section 145(3) and the estimation of profits, considering the lack of clarity on previous substantive assessments.

Issue 2: Disallowance of interest expenses:
The AO disallowed interest expenses amounting to Rs. 52.61 lakhs. The appellant raised concerns about this disallowance during the proceedings. However, the judgment did not provide detailed analysis or resolution regarding this specific issue.

Issue 3: Addition of unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act:
The AO added Rs. 25,00,000 as an unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. The appellant argued that this amount was a result of an inadvertent entry in the books of account and should not be treated as unexplained credit. The CIT (A) confirmed the addition, leading the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded this issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the appellant's submissions and providing a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to be heard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding all issues raised by the appellant for further examination by the AO. The judgment emphasized the need for a thorough review of the facts and previous assessments to ensure a fair and accurate determination of income and compliance with relevant provisions of the Act.