2015 (8) TMI 660 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - ITAT disallowing additions of undisclosed income for the block period which were made on the basis of search on the other hand? - Whether ITAT has erred by holding that no trading addition by estimating the sales of whole of the block period was called for and thereby the additions of undisclosed income were disallowed? - Held that - The entire basis of making the addition was only in view of the two bills. There were several bills during that period. There was no justification for presuming that in respect of every bill amount(s) had been taken which was not recorded in the books of account. More important is the fact that the Assessing Officer did not doubt the GP rate of 7.4% declared by the assessee/respondent. The books of account were also subject to verification by the Excise Department which did not find any discrepancy. It is not as if the Tribunal did not take into consideration the fact that the books of account had been rejected and that the correctness of the rejection of the books had been upheld finally. - Decided against revenue.

Issues:
1. Whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleting the addition of about Rs. 15,43,000/- for the block period 01.04.1985 to 23.11.1995 is valid.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the books of accounts while disallowing additions of undisclosed income based on search.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not making trading additions by estimating sales for the block period.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order deleting the addition of Rs. 15,43,000/- for the block period 01.04.1985 to 23.11.1995. The Tribunal made the addition based on two bills seized during a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer applied a 54% rate for certain years, leading to the assessee surrendering Rs. 1,70,000. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and found the Assessing Officer's presumptions unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal noted that only two bills were found, which the assessee explained were cancelled, supported by affidavits from parties confirming non-payment and cancellation of the bills. The Tribunal held that the addition based on these two bills was unjustified.

2. The Tribunal rejected the Assessing Officer's approach of applying a 54% rate based on two bills, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the presumption that undisclosed income was involved in every bill. The Tribunal considered the GP rate declared by the assessee, the verification by the Excise Department, and the absence of discrepancies found. Despite the rejection of the books of account, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's presumptions lacked substantial evidence. The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances, finding no justification for the addition based solely on the two bills.

3. The Tribunal's decision not to make trading additions by estimating sales for the block period was upheld. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's presumptions regarding undisclosed income were unfounded, considering the lack of evidence supporting the addition. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the facts, surrounding circumstances, and lack of substantial evidence to justify the addition led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's order was deemed not perverse, as it involved a comprehensive evaluation of the facts and considerations, ultimately supporting the deletion of the addition.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence supporting the Assessing Officer's presumptions regarding undisclosed income. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and consideration of all relevant factors led to the dismissal of the appeal, as the order was deemed not perverse.

← Previous Next →