2018 (4) TMI 1632 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of account - estimating the net profit rate - non-maintenance of day to day stock register - Assessing officer disputed the expenditure claimed against the contract receipts including expenses on freight and carriage - Held that - Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pandit Bros. Vs. CIT 1954 (3) TMI 70 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT have been unanimous to hold that where owing to the nature of business of the assessee it is not possible for the assessee to maintain day to day to day stock register the books of account should not be rejected merely on this count. So far as the non-furnishing of the measurement sheets is concerned the assessee had already explained before AO that it was not in practice of making the measurement sheets as the said work was used to be done by the quality manager of the department of the government before making the payment. The assessee finally had completed the projects. So far as the observation of the Assessing officer that certain vouchers were handmade and certain receipts were unsigned as observed since the assessee is involved in the road construction business for which it had to make payment to various labourers and other persons who do not possess any printed vouchers taking into the consideration the aforesaid nature of business even if some vouchers relating to freight repairs etc. were handmade that also in our view is not sufficient ground to reject the books of account. Assessing officer was not justified in rejecting the books of account only for the aforesaid reasons in the absence of any other discrepancy. The action of the Assessing officer for rejecting the books of account because of the aforesaid reasons was not justified. Accordingly the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing officer to go through the accounts of the assessee viz a viz the computation of income and pass a fresh assessment order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Rejection of books of account by Assessing officer.
2. Estimation of net profit rate by Assessing officer.
3. Disallowance of deductions by Assessing officer.
4. Treatment of interest income by Assessing officer.
5. Correct assessment of income by Assessing officer.

Issue 1: Rejection of books of account by Assessing officer:
The appellant challenged the rejection of books of account by the Assessing officer, citing difficulties in maintaining a day-to-day stock register due to the nature of the business as a government road contractor. The Assessing officer observed discrepancies in the maintenance of records, including non-furnishing of measurement sheets and details of work in progress. The appellant argued that the measurement was done by the government department, and work in progress details were delayed due to the Assessing officer's timing. The appellant also highlighted previous years' assessments where the books were accepted. The Tribunal held that the rejection was unjustified as per various High Court decisions, emphasizing that the nature of the business justified the lack of a stock register. The Tribunal directed the Assessing officer to reevaluate the accounts and income computation.

Issue 2: Estimation of net profit rate by Assessing officer:
The appellant contested the application of an 8% net profit rate by the Assessing officer, claiming it was excessive for the nature of the business. The CIT(A) and the Assessing officer upheld the rate, citing past cases where similar estimations were supported by the High Court. The Tribunal reviewed the previous assessment year's rejection of books, focusing on discrepancies related to truck hire contracts. The Tribunal differentiated between the grounds for rejection in previous years and the current issue of stock register maintenance. It concluded that the rejection based on the lack of a stock register was unjustified, and the net profit rate should be reassessed.

Issue 3: Disallowance of deductions by Assessing officer:
The appellant raised concerns about the Assessing officer's refusal to allow deductions for interest paid on loans, depreciation on assets, and sales tax paid to the government. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of these specific deductions in the judgment, but it directed the Assessing officer to reconsider all issues raised by the appellant during the fresh assessment.

Issue 4: Treatment of interest income by Assessing officer:
The Assessing officer categorized interest income from Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDR) as 'income from other sources' instead of 'business income.' The appellant argued that the interest income should be considered business income. The Tribunal instructed the Assessing officer to review this classification along with other issues during the reassessment.

Issue 5: Correct assessment of income by Assessing officer:
The Tribunal emphasized the Assessing officer's duty to assess income accurately and under the correct head. It directed the Assessing officer to reevaluate all aspects of the appellant's income and deductions to ensure a fair and accurate assessment. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, indicating that the Assessing officer's actions were not justified, and the matter was remanded for a fresh assessment.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised by the appellant, the Assessing officer's decisions, and the Tribunal's findings and directions for reassessment.

← Previous Next →