2017 (4) TMI 607 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of profit in respect of IMFL business - Held that - Direct the A.O. to re-compute the income of the assessee at 5% of purchase price. Accordingly, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. Addition on account of unsecured loans - Held that - As in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer already made an addition of ₹ 11,53,178/- as assessee s investment made out of unexplained source and the same has been added as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order specifically mentioned that during the assessment year, the assessee found to have been accepted unsecured loan of ₹ 1,22,000/- . When Assessing Officer has treated the amount of ₹ 11,53,178/- as unexplained source again making addition of ₹ 1,22,000/- as unsecured loan, in my opinion, is not justified. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 1,22,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Estimation of profit in IMFL business
2. Addition of unsecured loans

Estimation of Profit in IMFL Business:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an individual engaged in the purchase and sale of IMFL. Initially, the income was assessed at 20% of the stock put for sale, which was later reduced to 10% by the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the issue of profit estimation, referencing a similar case where a 5% profit margin was deemed reasonable. The Tribunal found that the A.O.'s estimation of 20% profit was unjustified as it did not consider the specific nature of the IMFL business. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and directed the A.O. to estimate the profit at 5% of total purchases net of deductions, in line with the decisions of the coordinate bench. Consequently, the A.O. was instructed to re-compute the income at 5% of the purchase price, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

Addition of Unsecured Loans:
The A.O. had added an amount as unsecured loan under section 68 of the Act, as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the unsecured loan of a specific amount. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the assessee could not substantiate the source of the loan. However, the counsel for the assessee argued that a separate addition for the unproved loan was unjustified as a significant amount was already added as income from unexplained sources. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the A.O. had already treated a substantial amount as unexplained source and adding the unsecured loan separately was not justified. Consequently, the addition of the unsecured loan amount was directed to be deleted under section 68 of the Act, and the appeal on this ground was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the A.O. to re-compute the income at 5% of the purchase price for the IMFL business and deleting the addition of the unsecured loan amount.