9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 67 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of earnings by the assessee - net average profit computation - number of vehicles processed by the assessee for the purpose of obtaining loan - AO computed the income by applying the average profit per Rikshaw - Held that - Assessing Officer computed the income by applying the average profit per Rikshaw as net commission and no further expenses were allowed in the hands of assessee. However the CIT(A) allowed the deduction on account of First Category of expenses and no deduction was allowed on account of Second Category of expenses. The estimation of earnings by the assessee is based on the material found from the possession of assessee in assessment year 2003-04 for some of the vehicles and in view of the evidence found during the course of search the estimation worked out by the Assessing Officer merits to be applied. However to meet the ends of justice and keeping in mind the fact that on the basis of documents seized the estimation for assessment year 2006-07 at 8, 888/- is lower than the estimation for assessment year 2005-06 at 9, 571/- which is not possible. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the average profit per Rikshaw in the hands of assessee in assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 @ 6000/- for assessment years 2004- 05 and 2005-06 the same may be adopted @ 6, 500/- and for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 @ 7, 000/- per vehicle.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 148. 2. Estimation of commission income. 3. Allowance of expenses under "First Category" and "Other Expenses". 4. Disallowance of bad debts or losses incurred by the assessee as guarantor or surety. Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 148: The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment by issuing notice under Section 148, arguing the absence of any material indicating escapement of income. However, this ground was not pressed by the assessee and hence, dismissed as not pressed. 2. Estimation of Commission Income: The primary contention was the estimation of commission income in the absence of regular books of account. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated the commission income based on seized records, determining an average profit per vehicle. The assessee argued that the estimation was arbitrary and not reflective of actual profits. The AO's estimation was based on the number of vehicles processed and the average profit per vehicle derived from seized documents. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's estimation but allowed certain deductions for expenses. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, directed the AO to adopt a revised average profit per vehicle for different assessment years, reducing the initially estimated figures. 3. Allowance of Expenses: The expenses claimed by the assessee were categorized into "First Category" and "Other Expenses". The "First Category" included specific expenses like meter passing, hood fitting, etc. The CIT(A) allowed these expenses at a specific rate per vehicle for certain years based on evidence found during the search. For earlier years, a percentage of commission income was allowed as expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of these expenses but directed the AO to apply a consistent rate for all relevant years. Regarding "Other Expenses", the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence or substantiate the claims. Consequently, the AO and CIT(A) disallowed these expenses, and the Tribunal upheld this disallowance. 4. Disallowance of Bad Debts or Losses: The assessee's claim for deduction of bad debts or losses incurred as a guarantor or surety was not pressed, and hence, this ground was dismissed as not pressed. Conclusion: The appeals were partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the AO to re-compute the income by adopting revised average profit figures and allowing specific deductions for "First Category" expenses. The disallowance of "Other Expenses" and bad debts was upheld. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the need for a fair and just estimation of income based on available evidence and principles of natural justice.
|
