2017 (8) TMI 441 - AT - Income Tax

Deemed income - difference between revenue disclosed by the assessee in P increase in personnel expenses; and increase in depreciation charges which have been reproduced by the ld. CIT (A) of the impugned order but has not preferred to assign any reason for not accepting the contentions raised by the assessee. So in view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that in the absence of any cogent reasons addition on the basis of fall in net profit ratio that too without rejecting the books of account is not sustainable hence deleted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellate order passed by the CIT(A).
2. Legality of the assessment order passed by the AO.
3. Rejection of the assessee's accounting method by CIT(A).
4. Addition of Rs. 65,52,74,478 due to non-response from third-party vendors.
5. Disallowance under Section 68 for unconfirmed amounts.
6. Adhoc addition of Rs. 23,93,44,462 for vendors not issued notices.
7. Legality of enhancement notice and enhancement by CIT(A).
8. Jurisdictional overreach by CIT(A) in enhancing income.
9. Disallowance of Rs. 27,50,306 for non-deduction of TDS.
10. Disallowance of Rs. 1,89,784 for non-deduction of TDS on an adhoc basis.
11. Disallowance of pass-through costs under Section 40(a)(ia).
12. Non-reduction of corresponding amounts recovered from customers.
13. Applicability of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).
14. Allowance of TDS benefit in the year it is deemed deducted and paid.
15. Erroneous computation of additional income.
16. Addition of Rs. 3,01,15,968 on account of decrease in net profit ratio.
17. Direction to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 201(1).
18. Allegation of passing the order in haste and without adequate opportunity.

Detailed Analysis:

Ground No. 1:
The ground was general in nature and did not require specific adjudication.

Ground No. 2:
The ground was not pressed by the assessee, and thus, it was decided against the assessee.

Grounds No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 18:
The primary challenge was the AO's treatment of the difference between revenue disclosed in the P&L account and the receipts shown in Form No. 26AS as deemed income. The assessee disclosed revenue of Rs. 31,70,10,189 in the P&L account, while Form No. 26AS showed receipts of Rs. 163,17,01,764, resulting in a discrepancy of Rs. 131,46,91,575. The assessee contended this difference arose due to its accounting policy and provided a reconciliation statement. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) and AO misinterpreted the business model and accounting policy, as the assessee was acting as an agent, a position supported by previous ITAT and DRP orders. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for verification of payments to vendors and proper reconciliation.

Grounds No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14:
The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 27,50,306 and Rs. 1,89,784 for non-deduction of TDS under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT(A) disallowed these amounts, arguing that the payments involved work contracts liable for TDS under Section 194C. The Tribunal, referencing its previous order, stated that the CIT(A) could enhance the assessment but required proper verification. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for detailed investigation and verification of vendor payments.

Ground No. 15:
This ground was not pressed by the assessee and was decided against the assessee.

Ground No. 16:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 3,01,15,968 due to a decrease in the net profit ratio. The Tribunal noted that the net profit ratio had varied over the years and that the CIT(A) did not provide reasons for confirming the addition. The Tribunal held that without rejecting the audited books of account, an addition based solely on a fall in the net profit ratio was unsustainable and deleted the addition.

Ground No. 17:
This ground was considered premature and decided against the assessee.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication and verification. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper investigation, reconciliation, and adherence to legal standards in the assessment process.