9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 440 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of income by application of the profit rate on gross total receipt after rejecting books of 4 accounts u/s 145(3) - Held that - It is just fair and reasonable to estimate income of the assessee at the Net Profit rate of 4.0% of the gross total receipts for the year under appeal. While estimating net profit at 4.0% on the gross total receipt; the assessee shall not be eligible for deduction of expenses under the head depreciation, payment of salary and interest on capital to the partners. Thus, the assessee gets relief of 2.0%, in estimation of net profit rate on the gross total receipts as against the 6% net profit rate estimated by the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - Held that - Hon ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh (High Court) 2015 (3) TMI 153 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT wherein it is held that if there is a deposit in the partners account with the firm, same has to be considered in the hands of the partners. The Juridictional Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries (1999 (9) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court) held if the depositor a partner or any other individual owns the entry then the burden of the assessee firm is discharged. It is immaterial whether credits in the name of partners are reflected in the partner s capital account or current capital account. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Application of Net Profit (NP) rate for estimation of income after rejecting books of accounts. 2. Deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained credits in the current accounts of the partners. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of Net Profit Rate: The main contention in this issue revolves around the appropriate NP rate to be applied after rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) had applied a 10% NP rate on gross receipts, rejecting the books of accounts due to unverifiable expenses and unreliable records. The CIT(A) reduced this rate to 6%, without allowing deductions for salary and interest to partners, relying on precedents from the ITAT, Agra. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in applying a 6% NP rate instead of 10%, citing the ITAT, Agra decision in the case of Shri Mahesh Chandra Contractor, which confirmed an 8% profit rate upon rejection of books of account. The Assessee contended that the AO did not point out specific defects in the books of accounts and did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 144 of the Act, which mandates assessment based on material gathered or available on record. The Assessee further argued that the CIT(A) ignored past results and comparable cases, and that the NP rate should be estimated based on earlier years' results, which showed lower NP rates. The Assessee provided comparative trading results for previous years, showing NP rates before and after salary and interest to partners. The Tribunal concluded that it is fair and reasonable to estimate the income at a 4% NP rate on gross receipts, without allowing deductions for depreciation, salary, and interest to partners. This decision was based on precedents from the ITAT, Agra and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which supported lower NP rates in similar cases. Thus, the Assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. 2. Deletion of Addition under Section 68: The second issue pertains to the deletion of an addition of ?56,65,796 made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained credits in the partners' current accounts. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the partners' deposits were explained through confirmatory letters and their tax returns, establishing their creditworthiness and the genuineness of transactions. The Revenue argued that the source of funds and fund flow remained unexplained, contending that the CIT(A) wrongly relied on the case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries, which was not applicable to the present case. The Assessee countered that Section 68 does not apply to deposits made by partners in their current accounts with the firm, especially when the partners have admitted the entries as their own capital and are assessed to tax. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the jurisdictional Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Metachem Industries, which held that if the depositor (partner) owns the entry, the burden of the firm is discharged. The Tribunal also referred to the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision, which supported considering such deposits in the hands of the partners. Thus, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue. Conclusion: The appeal of the Assessee was partly allowed, reducing the NP rate to 4% without deductions, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the deletion of the addition under Section 68. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal precedents and proper assessment procedures under the Income Tax Act.
|
