2018 (4) TMI 1537 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained cash creditors - suppression of sale - application of net profit rate of 1.5% on the estimated sales - Held that - The assessee has discharged his onus of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. There is no evidence against the creditors to prove that they were providing accommodation entries. Therefore, mere deposit of money by the creditor on the same day does not establish that the loan is not genuine. It is an undisputed fact that while estimating the income, the AO has not based his estimate on any comparable case, or the past history of the case. Further, legally, he could not have added the entire difference between the estimated and declared sales as income; only the profit element ought to have been brought to tax. While the estimate of sales does not call for any interference, the reasonability of estimate of profit has to be judged in the light of comparable cases. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained cash creditors
2. Addition on account of suppression of sale

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of unexplained cash creditors
The appellant, a liquor contractor, filed a return for the assessment year 2011-12 declaring an income of &8377; 8,36,315. The Assessing Officer made additions of &8377; 55,93,270 for alleged suppression of sale and &8377; 71,98,000 as unexplained cash credit. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) found that only the profit element should have been brought to tax, not the entire difference between estimated and declared sales. Applying a net profit rate of 1.5% on the estimated sales, the Commissioner arrived at an income of &8377; 18,05,606. The Tribunal upheld this order, noting that the appellant had discharged the burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere deposit of money by the creditors on the same day did not establish that the loan was not genuine. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Assessing Officer did not base the income estimate on any comparable case or past history, and only the profit element should have been taxed, not the entire difference between estimated and declared sales.

Issue 2: Addition on account of suppression of sale
Regarding the addition on account of suppression of sale, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) directed the application of a net profit rate and arrived at a revised income figure. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, emphasizing the need to judge the reasonability of the estimate of profit in the light of comparable cases. The Tribunal found that the estimate of sales did not require any interference, but the reasonability of the estimated profit needed to be assessed. The Tribunal concluded that there was no material on record to doubt the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal, which would give rise to any substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

In summary, the High Court upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal, finding that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to support the genuineness of the loan creditors and that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the profit element for taxation purposes and upheld the revised income figures arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal.