9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 289 - AT - Income TaxExpenses claimed in trading and P&L account disallowed bills/vouchers for verification produced by assessee or not - Held that - CIT(A) sustain the rejection of books of account by the AO and the CIT(A) further proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee by taking G.P. rate of 11.22% of the assessee for immediately preceding year i.e. 1996-97 which was also accepted by the Department - CIT(A) rightly held that the assessee has shown gross profit on the total sales leading to G.P. rate of 9.47% - CIT(A) noticed decline in G.P. rate of 1.75% of the total sales during the year under consideration - the FAA estimated the income of the assessee by taking G.P. rate of 11.20% which was worked out to 70,98,512/- as against the declared G.P. of ₹ 59,98,881/- declared by the assessee in the return of income - Thus the CIT(A) was quite justified in making the addition, thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue. Disallowance of interest deleted Held that - The AO has made disallowance of interest but the AO has not brought out any adverse material or fact to support the disallowance of interest and the addition has been made without establishing the nexus of borrowed funds with the funds advanced as interest free loan - the AO has picked up interest free loan an advance given to Ms. Salini Saxena and to Pythen Mines P. and has made disallowance of entire amount of interest claimed by the assessee in P& L A/c but we are unable to see any nexus of borrowed funds with the funds advanced to the debtors as interest free loan the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to disallowed expenses. 2. Computation of income based on the return for the Assessment Year 1996-97. 3. Deletion of addition made by disallowing the interest. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Restriction of Additions Made by the AO Due to Disallowed Expenses The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to Rs. 10,99,631 against the larger additions made by the AO, despite the assessee's failure to produce supporting bills, vouchers, and other documents for verification. The AO had disallowed 50% of the expenses claimed in the trading and profit and loss account. The CIT(A) sustained the rejection of the books of accounts but proceeded to estimate the income based on the gross profit (GP) rate of 11.22% from the preceding year (1996-97), which was accepted by the Revenue. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO was not justified in disallowing 50% of the total expenses without any material evidence. The CIT(A) applied a GP rate of 11.20%, resulting in a total GP of Rs. 70,98,512, and confirmed the addition of Rs. 10,99,631 while deleting the balance addition. This approach was supported by judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court rulings in Brij Bhushan Lal Praduman Kumar vs. CIT and K.Y. Pilliah and Sons, which emphasized fair play and natural justice in best judgment assessments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the CIT(A) was justified in making the addition based on the GP rate from the previous year and found no perversity or ambiguity in the findings. Issue 2: Computation of Income Based on Return for Assessment Year 1996-97 The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in computing the income based on the return for the Assessment Year 1996-97, questioning the reliability of the results declared by the assessee for that year. The CIT(A) used the GP rate of 11.22% from the previous year as a comparable benchmark for estimating the income for the current assessment year. This method was deemed appropriate as the Revenue had accepted the GP rate in the immediately preceding year. The Tribunal found this approach reasonable and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income using the GP rate from the previous year. Issue 3: Deletion of Addition Made by Disallowing the Interest The AO had made an addition of Rs. 36,376 by disallowing the interest shown in the profit and loss account, arguing that the assessee had advanced interest-free loans while paying interest on borrowed funds. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the AO did not establish a nexus between the borrowed funds and the interest-free advances. The CIT(A) found that the AO had not considered the evidence already on record and disallowed the interest without establishing the necessary nexus. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), observing that the AO failed to provide any adverse material or facts to support the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's ground on this issue. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The CIT(A) was found to have acted correctly in restricting the additions, computing the income based on the previous year's return, and deleting the disallowed interest. The order was pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2014.
|
