2016 (7) TMI 399 - AT - Income Tax

Calculation of Suppression of Purchase; Suppression of gross profit and Suppression of Stock - whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in restricting the addition to ₹ 16,95,715.00? - Held that - The withdrawal from the bank can be for several purposes and do not necessary represent the purchase. In this case the base taken by the AO to unearth the unaccounted purchase was not correct in our considered view. The AO has also not brought any defect in the stock register of the assessee but has relied on the balancing figure of the stock. Accordingly in our view the AO has made the addition without applying his mind for unearthing the disclosed income of the assessee. In view of the above, we find that the base adopted by AO for working out the suppressed purchase, gross profit and closing stock was not proper and therefore we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).- Decided against revenue Failure to consider the provision of Sec. 292C by CIT(A) - presumption - Held that - We observe that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a speaking order and after considering the submission of assessee and taking the remand report from Assessing Officer. As per Sec.292C of the Act the documents seized at the premises of assessee are presumed belonging to assessee only and assessee has to justify about those documents. In this case, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has duly considered the justification given by assessee and accordingly he passed a speaking order. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue Unreasonable extra capital invested in the unrecorded purchase - rotation of the capital in the business - Held that - After considering the business and rotation of capital we are of the considered view to take the rotation cycle 15 times and accordingly work out the capital embodied in the disclosed purchase for ₹ 3,60,220/- (Rs. 54,03,311 / 15 times). This ground of assessee s CO is allowed - Decided against revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of Purchase, Gross Profit, and Stock
2. Application of Section 292C of the Income Tax Act
3. Attribution of Sales Proceeds to the Assessee
4. Computation of Extra Capital for Unrecorded Purchases

Detailed Analysis:

1. Suppression of Purchase, Gross Profit, and Stock:
The Revenue contested that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in reducing the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of suppression of purchase, gross profit, and stock from ?55,28,442 to ?16,95,715. The AO had identified discrepancies in the assessee's trading of hardware goods and cement, particularly noting unaccounted purchases and sales. The AO calculated suppressed purchases by treating all debit entries from the bank as purchases, leading to a significant addition to the total income. However, the CIT(A) found that not all debit entries represented purchases and excluded certain entries, reducing the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's basis for calculating suppressed purchases was flawed and that the CIT(A) had correctly assessed the unaccounted transactions.

2. Application of Section 292C of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) failed to consider Section 292C, which presumes that documents found during a survey belong to the assessee and their contents are true. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had indeed considered the justification provided by the assessee regarding the documents and passed a reasoned order. Thus, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s handling of the presumption under Section 292C.

3. Attribution of Sales Proceeds to the Assessee:
The assessee contested the attribution of sales proceeds from cement brands other than Grasim to her, arguing that these transactions pertained to her husband. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the impounded books showed unaccounted sales of various cement brands, and the assessee's attempts to disown these entries were unconvincing. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the unaccounted transactions belonged to the assessee.

4. Computation of Extra Capital for Unrecorded Purchases:
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s computation of extra capital required for unrecorded purchases, arguing that the turnover of capital was higher than assumed. The CIT(A) had presumed a turnover of four times, leading to an undisclosed investment calculation. The Tribunal, after considering the business nature and capital rotation, revised the turnover assumption to fifteen times, reducing the undisclosed investment to ?3,60,220. This adjustment was directed accordingly.

Final Judgments:
- The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s reduction of additions for suppression of purchase, gross profit, and stock.
- The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection, adjusting the computation of extra capital for unrecorded purchases.
- The Tribunal found no need for further adjudication on general grounds raised by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's comprehensive review supported the CIT(A)'s reasoned approach in reassessing the additions made by the AO, ensuring that only substantiated discrepancies were considered in the final taxable income.

← Previous Next →