2018 (6) TMI 1224 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - Additions made to the income of the assessee based on the loose sheets found in search - estimation of net profit at @ 6% of sales - Held that - A.O and CIT(A), have rejected the books of account for all the six years and have estimated the profit @ 6% of sales and this issue was considered by the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the A.Ys 2006-06 & 2007-08 and has deleted the addition as held in the absence of any incriminating material suggesting that book results should be rejected the addition cannot be made on estimate basis in the assessment made u/s 153A - Respectfully following the same, the grounds of appeal allowed and the addition after estimation of income @ 6% by the A.O and CIT(A) is deleted. Alleged loan given to Sri Rajeswar Rao has not been proved. Receipt of alimony - Held that - assessee has stated that he has received the money from his daughter, Smt. Deepa, who in turn has received the same from her divorced husband, towards her sons maintenance and permanent alimony. Though, the assessee has filed the copy of the court order in support of the contention that Smt. Deepa has received the money, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. A.O and CIT(A), the assessee has not been able to prove with substantial evidence that this is the money advanced by Smt. Deepa, particularly when the conditions of granting alimony have not been fulfilled by Smt. Deepa. In view of the same, the grounds are rejected. Deduction claimed u/s 80U denied.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the IT Act.
2. Addition of ?10 lakhs as unexplained loan.
3. Addition of ?3 lakhs as unexplained deposits in the post office.
4. Estimation of net profit at 6% of sales.
5. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80U of the IT Act for ?50,000.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A:
The assessee challenged the assessment made under section 143(3) read with section 153A, asserting that there was no incriminating material to support the additions made. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were based on loose sheets and dumb materials, which have no evidentiary value. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case for the A.Ys 2005-06 and 2007-08, where it was held that in the absence of any incriminating material suggesting that book results should be rejected, the addition cannot be made on an estimate basis in the assessment made under section 153A. Consequently, the grounds against the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A were upheld.

2. Addition of ?10 Lakhs as Unexplained Loan:
The A.O added ?10 lakhs as an unexplained loan based on a blank signed cheque found during the search. The cheque was issued by the proprietor of M/s Sri Raja Rajeshwari Steel Traders, who could not be traced. The Tribunal noted that the transaction of the loan was not proved either by the issuer or by his relative. The Tribunal referred to a similar issue in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2005-06, where it was held that there was no conclusive evidence to support the allegation that the assessee had advanced the money. Following this precedent, the addition of ?10 lakhs was deleted.

3. Addition of ?3 Lakhs as Unexplained Deposits in the Post Office:
The A.O added ?3 lakhs as unexplained deposits, which the assessee claimed were received from his daughter, Smt. Deepa, as alimony. The assessee provided a court order to support the claim, but the A.O and CIT(A) disbelieved it due to the gap between the receipt of alimony and the deposit, and the non-fulfillment of conditions related to the alimony. The Tribunal upheld the addition, noting that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim with substantial evidence.

4. Estimation of Net Profit at 6% of Sales:
The A.O estimated the net profit at 6% of sales, rejecting the books of accounts due to the lack of supporting bills for purchases and sales. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case for the A.Ys 2005-06 and 2007-08, where it was held that in the absence of any incriminating material suggesting that book results should be rejected, the addition cannot be made on an estimate basis. Consequently, the addition based on the estimation of income at 6% was deleted.

5. Disallowance of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80U:
The A.O disallowed the deduction of ?50,000 claimed under section 80U for physical disability, as the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the certificate submitted. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been held against the assessee in its earlier decision for the A.Ys 2005-06 and 2007-08. Following the same precedent, the disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80U was upheld.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal deleting the additions related to the estimation of net profit and the unexplained loan, while upholding the additions related to the unexplained deposits and the disallowance of the deduction under section 80U.

← Previous Next →