2015 (3) TMI 6 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of undisclosed working capital - CIT (A) restricted the addition at 8,91,445/- as against ₹ 14,76,464/- made by AO - Held that - CIT(A) has only telescoped this income against income from undisclosed portion of business and according to him, the undisclosed business income will be ₹ 10,49,059/- as the books of account had already been rejected and estimation has been made by the AO. We find no infirmity in the direction of CIT(A) telescoping this income against the business income. - Decided against revenue. Unexplained investment in RIP - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - No infirmity in the findings of CIT(A) as he is telescoped the investment in RIPs at ₹ 1,39,941/- against left out unadjusted profit from business at ₹ 1,57,614/-. Hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) on this issue - Decided against revenue. Non existent trade creditors - addition to income - Held that - Trade creditors/sundry creditors exist in the Balance Sheet of the assessee and there is no write off made by the assessee or no claim made by the assessee. Once this is the position, this cannot be added because liability still exists. In such circumstances, we delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance under section 40A(3) - Held that - We find that the AO has rejected the books of account and estimated the profit and these purchases are included in the estimated sales of ₹ 1,57,84,783 /-. Once the books of account are rejected and profit is estimated on the disputed turnover/purchases, no further disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the revenue.
2. Restriction of addition by CIT(A) regarding undisclosed working capital.
3. Deletion of addition by CIT(A) regarding unexplained investment in RIP.
4. Treatment of trade creditors as non-existent.
5. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal by the Revenue:
The revenue's appeal was delayed by 47 days. The revenue filed a condonation petition supported by an affidavit. The assessee's counsel conceded that the delay could be condoned. The tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.

2. Restriction of Addition by CIT(A) Regarding Undisclosed Working Capital:
The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition of undisclosed working capital to Rs. 8,91,445/- instead of Rs. 14,76,464/- as estimated by the AO. The assessee supported the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee admitted to omitting part of the business in the initial return due to late receipt of relevant documents. The AO rejected the book results and estimated the total turnover, which was slightly enhanced by CIT(A). The CIT(A) determined the total working capital required for the disclosed business and calculated the additional working capital needed for the undisclosed business. The CIT(A) allowed the benefit of telescoping, leading to no further addition. The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s direction and dismissed the revenue's appeal and the corresponding ground in the assessee's cross-objection.

3. Deletion of Addition by CIT(A) Regarding Unexplained Investment in RIP:
The revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,39,941/- made by the AO as unexplained investment in RIP. The CIT(A) allowed telescoping of the RIP investment against the unadjusted profit from the undisclosed business income. The tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings and confirmed the order, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this issue.

4. Treatment of Trade Creditors as Non-existent:
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the AO's treatment of trade creditors amounting to Rs. 1,06,676/- as non-genuine. The AO added these amounts as non-genuine since the assessee could not provide details or explanations. The tribunal observed that these trade creditors existed in the balance sheet and had not been written off or claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the tribunal deleted the addition and allowed the assessee's appeal on this issue.

5. Disallowance Under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the AO's disallowance of Rs. 1,59,762/- under section 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- made otherwise than by crossed bank cheque or draft. The AO had noticed such payments totaling Rs. 7,98,811/- and disallowed 20% of this sum. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that section 40A(3) is a deeming provision and the disallowance is justified even if the books are rejected and profits estimated. The tribunal, however, found that once the books are rejected and profits estimated, no further disallowance under section 40A(3) can be made. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this issue.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, dismissed the revenue's appeal, and dismissed the assessee's cross-objection.