2012 (9) TMI 1158 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment order u/s 143(3) without filing a return of income.
2. Ownership of M/s. Associated Apparels.
3. Additions on account of investments and profits in M/s. Associated Apparels.
4. Estimation of household expenses.

Summary:

1. Validity of Assessment Order u/s 143(3):
The assessee contended that the assessment order u/s 143(3) was invalid as no return of income was filed, and notice u/s 143(2) was issued in the absence of a return. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment, stating that despite the technical error, the assessment was validly framed following due process of law and in pursuance of the CIT(A)'s order dated 24-03-1992. The Tribunal confirmed this finding, noting the assessee's failure to produce contrary materials.

2. Ownership of M/s. Associated Apparels:
The primary issue was whether the assessee, Mr. Rohit K. Mehta, was the real owner of M/s. Associated Apparels. The AO and CIT(A) concluded that Mr. Mehta was the owner based on evidence from a search and statements from involved parties. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that documents and statements indicated Mr. Mehta's ownership, despite his claims of being only a power of attorney holder.

3. Additions on Account of Investments and Profits:
- Investment of Rs. 2,60,000/-: The Tribunal, agreeing with the CIT(A), deleted this addition, finding no separate material to justify it apart from the confirmed investment of Rs. 18 lakhs in purchases.
- Profit of Rs. 7,20,000/-: The Tribunal confirmed this addition, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee must have earned profit on the Rs. 18 lakhs investment in goods.
- Estimated Value of Goods Imported (Rs. 4,75,500/-) and Profit from Shortage of Goods (Rs. 1,26,900/-): The Tribunal allowed telescoping benefits, deleting these additions by considering them covered by the Rs. 18 lakhs investment and profit addition.

4. Estimation of Household Expenses:
The AO's addition of Rs. 40,400/- for household expenses was partly upheld. The Tribunal, agreeing with the CIT(A), reduced this to Rs. 30,000/-, noting the assessee's own submission that the expenses should not exceed this amount.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal confirming the ownership of M/s. Associated Apparels by Mr. Mehta, upholding the profit addition of Rs. 7,20,000/-, reducing the household expenses addition to Rs. 30,000/-, and deleting the additions of Rs. 2,60,000/-, Rs. 4,75,500/-, and Rs. 1,26,900/- by allowing telescoping benefits.