9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2421 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of total contract expenses - rejection of books of account of the assessee - CIT(A) allowed part relief - Held that - The assessee has shown total turnover during the year at ₹ 14.71 crores on which net profit has been shown @ 5.02%, which was ₹ 27.98 crores and net profit rate @ 5.77% in immediate preceding year. The assessee claimed that he produced the books of account but the Assessing Officer was not available in the office but books were examined by the Inspector on behalf of the Assessing Officer. The ld Assessing Officer applied Section 145(3) and rejected the book result on the ground that required details of contract expense were not submitted before him. Therefore, we confirm the order of rejection U/s 145(3), which has not been challenged by the assessee. However, estimate made by the ld Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is higher side, which would give net profit rate of 12.84% before depreciation, which is not possible in contract business. It is also fact that required details of contract expenses were not submitted before the Assessing Officer and net profit has declined for which the assessee explained that price has gone up. He also referred the cost of inflation index for this purpose, which supports the assessee s claim. The lower authorities also have not compared the case with other assessee s for estimating the NP rate, therefore, in the interest of justice, we apply N.P. rate @ 5.1% on turnover of ₹ 14,71,70,861/- and remaining addition is deleted. The Assessing Officer is directed to calculate the income as per the above finding. - Decided in favour of assessee partly. Disallowance of interest and bank charges - Held that - As decided in Ganesh Chawala Vs. Income Tax Officer 2008 (5) TMI 651 - ITAT JAIPUR is squarely applicable wherein it has been held that the assessee having purchased properties in the preceding years out of interest-free funds, no disallowance of interest having been made in those years and there being no material on record to show that loans raised for business purposes were utilised in purchasing properties in personal name of the assessee and therefore, AO was not justified in disallowing interest The facts and circumstances of the case are identical to the case of Ganesh Chawala Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra). There was also fact that netting of interest is positive, therefore, no disallowance can be made by the Assessing Officer without establishing the direct nexus with interest bearing borrowings to immovable properties purchased. The assessee s capital was ₹ 2,81,21,267/- is more than investment made in immovable property at ₹ 1,54,71,217/-, therefore, the ld CIT(A) was not right in confirming the addition on account of interest at ₹ 17,48,663/-. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A) and allowed the assessee s appeal on this ground. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 38,60,745 out of total addition of Rs. 40,21,610 made by A.O. by disallowing contract expenses. 2. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 17,48,663 made by A.O. by disallowing interest and bank charges. Issue-Wise Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 38,60,745 by Disallowing Contract Expenses: The assessee, a contractor, filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 72,88,200. The case was scrutinized under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) rejected the books of account due to non-cooperation from the assessee in furnishing requisite details and producing books of account and supporting evidence for verification. The A.O. issued multiple notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), but the assessee failed to comply, leading to the rejection of the books under Section 145(3). The A.O. observed discrepancies in contract receipts, leading to a separate addition of Rs. 15,000. The assessee had shown total contract receipts of Rs. 14,71,70,861 and debited Rs. 13,40,53,661 under contract expenses, which constituted 91.09% of gross receipts. The A.O. found these expenses excessive and disallowed 3% of the total contract expenses, amounting to Rs. 40,21,610. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the rejection of books of account and the application of Section 145(3). However, the CIT(A) noted that the A.O. should make an honest estimation based on past history or comparable cases. The CIT(A) considered the average contract expenses of the previous two years (88.21%) and disallowed 2.88% of total contract expenses, resulting in an addition of Rs. 38,60,745, giving the assessee a relief of Rs. 1,60,865. The assessee argued that the rejection of books does not give unfettered power to assess income arbitrarily and that the past history and inflation should be considered. The Tribunal confirmed the rejection of books under Section 145(3) but found the estimate by the A.O. and CIT(A) to be on the higher side. The Tribunal applied a net profit (N.P.) rate of 5.1% on the turnover of Rs. 14,71,70,861 and directed the A.O. to calculate the income accordingly. 2. Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 17,48,663 by Disallowing Interest and Bank Charges: The A.O. disallowed interest and bank charges of Rs. 17,48,663, observing that the assessee utilized interest-bearing borrowings for non-business assets, including the acquisition of plots and advances to family members and M/s Vaishali Stone Crusher. The A.O. concluded that the interest-bearing borrowings were not used for business purposes. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, noting that the appellant failed to provide a specific explanation or justification for the advances. The CIT(A) observed that the appellant's capital was insufficient to cover the business assets, indicating that interest-bearing funds were used for non-business purposes. The assessee argued that the capital was sufficient to cover the non-business investments and that the previous year's scrutiny assessment did not disallow such interest. The assessee also contended that the net interest income was positive after considering interest income from investments. The Tribunal found that the additional investment in the year was Rs. 17.25 lakhs, with the remaining investment coming from the previous year. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. did not disallow interest in the previous year's scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal held that the assessee's capital was more than the investment in non-business assets and that the net interest income was positive. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, confirming the rejection of books under Section 145(3) but applying a lower N.P. rate of 5.1%. The Tribunal also reversed the disallowance of interest and bank charges, finding that the assessee's capital was sufficient to cover the non-business investments and that the net interest income was positive.
|
