2018 (2) TMI 260 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of assessee s books u/s.145 - Held that - Learned counsel however fails to rebut both the lower authorities multiple reasoning supporting rejection of assessee s books u/s.145 of the Act after quoting various shortages forming hallmark of ship breaking business. We therefore see no reason to accept assessee s instant substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law as well as on facts in rejecting its books. The assessee s instant first substantive ground is therefore declined. Unaccounted sales of machineries/DG sets, engines addition - Held that - We find no substance in the instant appeal for the reason that profit element in account and unaccounted sales figures may not be uniform on presumption basis. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to compute the impugned addition by taking NP @4.5% qua the addition amount of ₹ 55lacs. The assessee gets part relief in its second substantive ground. Unaccounted sales of oil addition - Assessing Officer admittedly made the impugned addition after holding that the assessee had sold oil in ship s engines after they were taken to its ship breaking yard - Held that - We find at this stage that neither the assessee has discharged its onus that none of the ships concerned had oil in its fuel tank nor Revenue has proved the exact quantity thereof since the Assessing Officer chose to make the impugned addition on estimation basis. We accordingly see no reason to interfere with learned CIT(A) s conclusion restricting the impugned addition to a lump sum amount of ₹ 1lac only.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.
2. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition on account of unaccounted sales of machinery/DG sets/engine sets.
4. Addition on account of unaccounted sales of oil.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee's appeal suffered an 11-day delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the inadvertence of the accountant, as stated in the condonation affidavit dated 08.05.2017. The Departmental Representative did not dispute this, leading to the condonation of the delay. The appeal was thus taken up for adjudication on merits.

2. Rejection of Books of Accounts:
The assessee, engaged in the ship-breaking business, had its books rejected by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act. The AO's rejection was based on the assessee's failure to maintain accurate records of raw material consumption, finished goods, and shortages. The CIT(A) upheld this rejection, noting the difficulty in maintaining day-to-day records in the ship-breaking industry but also emphasizing the lack of control over consumption and production, which could lead to revenue leakage.

The assessee argued that maintaining detailed records was impractical due to the nature of the business and cited various case laws to support its position. However, the Tribunal found no reason to overturn the lower authorities' decision, agreeing that the rejection of books was justified.

3. Unaccounted Sales of Machinery/DG Sets/Engine Sets:
The AO made an addition of ?55 lakhs for unaccounted sales of machinery/DG sets/engine sets, which was reduced to ?10 lakhs by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reasoned that while the sale of such items was plausible, the exact details were not provided, and thus a lump sum addition was appropriate.

The assessee contended that the AO's addition was speculative and unsupported by evidence. However, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the machinery parts were likely functional and thus upheld the addition in principle but directed the AO to compute the addition based on a net profit rate of 4.5% on the ?55 lakhs, providing partial relief to the assessee.

4. Unaccounted Sales of Oil:
The AO added ?10,57,240 for unaccounted sales of oil, which the CIT(A) reduced to ?1 lakh. The CIT(A) acknowledged the practical difficulties in measuring the exact quantity of oil due to factors like consumption during anchorage and beaching, variations in measurement, and the presence of sludge. The CIT(A) found no evidence of unaccounted sales but upheld a nominal addition to account for potential revenue leakage.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that neither party had definitively proved the exact quantity of oil, and thus the lump sum addition of ?1 lakh was reasonable. Both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by directing the AO to compute the addition for unaccounted machinery/DG sets/engine sets based on a 4.5% net profit rate. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s decisions on the rejection of books and the lump sum additions for unaccounted sales of machinery and oil were upheld.

← Previous Next →