2014 (7) TMI 805 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of the income from business Non-allowance of depreciation Held that - The assessee contended that the rate of 1% adopted by the CIT(A) for estimation of income of the assessee is on the higher side, since adoption of a rate of 0.5% would be reasonable - non-allowance of depreciation from such estimated income is against the instructions of the CBDT - as it has already been decided in assessee s own case that one more opportunity is allowed to the assessee for production of its books of accounts and other documents before the AO to substantiate its claim thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration - the AO is directed to re-examine the matter, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce the books of account and other information, and re-determine the income Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Estimation of income of the assessee from business for the assessment year 2009-10 based on the rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer and subsequent appeals challenging the estimation.

Analysis:
The main issue in the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad involved the estimation of the income of the assessee from business for the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account provided by the assessee due to various shortcomings, such as failure to produce details of purchases, sales, transportation modes, opening and closing stock, machinery usage, raw material consumption, and more. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer estimated the net income of the assessee at 1.5% of the total turnover, including other income derived from the business. The CIT(A) later directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 1% net of all deductions, without separately allowing depreciation, which the CIT(A) deemed unnecessary considering the lower rate adopted. The assessee appealed this decision, arguing for a lower rate of 0.5% and the allowance of depreciation, citing CBDT instructions and Tribunal decisions in similar cases.

Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and the specific plea of the assessee for another opportunity to furnish relevant books of account and details before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted a previous case where similar circumstances led to the matter being remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. In light of this, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A) order and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment, directing the assessee to cooperate in producing all necessary documents. The Tribunal emphasized the Assessing Officer's duty to afford a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard and to make an independent decision based on the examination of the documents provided. The Tribunal's decision aimed at ensuring a fair assessment process and compliance with the law, ultimately allowing both appeals for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the proper estimation of the assessee's income from business, highlighting the importance of maintaining accurate records and providing necessary details for assessment purposes. The Tribunal's decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination aimed at ensuring a fair and thorough assessment process based on complete and verified information.