2017 (8) TMI 932 - HC - Income Tax

Rejecting the books of accounts - low Gross Profit rate - Held that - The Court finds that although the Assessee failed to produce the relevant documents before the AO, it did so before the CIT (A) who called for the remand report from the AO. After considering the remand report, the CIT(A) quashed the above-mentioned addition. Detailed reasons have been given by the CIT(A) after considering the documents and the same have been concurred with by the ITAT. The Court is unable to be persuaded that these concurrent findings of the CIT (A) and the ITAT suffer from any perversity. Consequently, the Court declines to frame any questions on this issue. Addition u/s 37 (1) - Held that - Here again, although the Assessee had not produced the relevant vouchers before the AO, it did so before the CIT(A). The factual findings in this regard are not shown to be perverse and, therefore, the Court declines to frame any question on this issue. Addition u/s 68 - unexplained credit - Held that - A perusal of the order of the CIT (A) in this regard shows that additional evidence was placed before the CIT(A) on which the remand report was sought. Partial relief was granted by the CIT(A) which has been confirmed by the ITAT.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of ?36,19,849 under low Gross Profit rate
2. Deletion of disallowance of ?4,07,202 under Section 37(1) of the Act
3. Deletion of addition of ?7,01,190 and ?47,53,544 under Section 68 of the Act

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the addition of ?36,19,849 due to a low Gross Profit rate. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's confirmation of the CIT(A)'s decision to delete this addition. The Assessee initially failed to produce relevant documents before the AO but later submitted them before the CIT(A), who then called for a remand report. The CIT(A) quashed the addition after considering the documents, a decision upheld by the ITAT. The Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without framing any questions on this issue.

2. The second issue involves the deletion of a disallowance of ?4,07,202 under Section 37(1) of the Act by the CIT(A). Despite the Assessee's initial failure to provide relevant vouchers to the AO, they were submitted before the CIT(A). The Court found no perversity in the factual findings and declined to frame any questions on this issue, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.

3. The final issue pertains to the deletion of additions of ?7,01,190 and ?47,53,544 under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit. The CIT(A) granted partial relief after additional evidence was presented, leading to a remand report. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision. Upon reviewing the orders of the CIT(A) and ITAT, the Court found no perversity warranting the framing of any question of law, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.