9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 711 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 41 - cessation of liability towards sundry creditors - Assessee added the amount towards written off of sundry creditors in the amount of sales and shown the gross profit @6.46% - Held that - the C.A. who has prepared the Trading A/c for the assessee for assessment year under appeal, has not prepared the accounts property and as such, the Income Tax Authorities are required to be vigilant to see that such type of practice should not have followed in future. The action of the concerned C.A. is wholly in appropriate and we do not approve his conduct in preparing such a Trading Account. The assessee maintained books of account which are audited and the A.O. has not pointed out any specific defect in maintenance of the books of account by the assessee. The book results of the assessee have not been rejected under section 145(3) of the I.T. Act. There was no justification to disbelieve the purchases made by assessee in earlier year. Therefore, there is no reason to make such addition against the assessee on account of loss considering the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. Ultimately, assessee has declared income on account of written off creditors. Therefore, the claim of assessee should not have been rejected by the A.O. No additions - Decided against the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?1,38,32,012/- made by the A.O. on account of sundry creditors as per Section 41 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of ?1,38,32,012/- Made by the A.O. on Account of Sundry Creditors as per Section 41 of the I.T. Act, 1961: Facts of the Case: The assessee, deriving income from steel fabrication, filed a return declaring an income of ?6,66,800/-. During assessment, the A.O. noted a gross profit rate of 6.46% on sales and other receipts totaling ?3,01,26,254/- for the A.Y. 2010-2011, significantly lower than previous years. The sales included ?1,57,79,080/- written off as sundry creditors. The A.O. questioned this write-off, suspecting it to be an attempt to evade tax by creating bogus liabilities. Assessee's Explanation: The assessee explained that the write-off was due to the inability to pay creditors because of inferior quality raw materials, which led to selling products as scrap at a lower price. The assessee argued that this write-off was added back to income under Section 41(1) of the I.T. Act, asserting that unilateral write-off of a trading liability attracts this section. A.O.'s Findings: The A.O. rejected the assessee's explanation, stating there was no evidence of inferior quality material or legal action taken against suppliers. The A.O. considered the write-off an afterthought and treated the gross loss of ?1,38,32,012/- as undisclosed income, adding it back to the assessee's income. CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) found the assessee's arguments plausible, noting that the write-off should have been shown separately but its inclusion in sales did not affect the overall profit. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's evidence of sales at a lower price due to inferior quality and noted that independent authorities like Sales Tax and Excise had accepted the assessee's records. The CIT(A) concluded that the A.O.'s addition was unjustified, as no defects were found in the assessee's books of accounts, and deleted the addition. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and evidence, noting that the A.O. had not rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the I.T. Act and had not found specific defects. The Tribunal agreed that the income declared under Section 41(1) should not have been added to sales, as it distorted the trading account. However, it acknowledged that the ultimate profit remained unchanged whether the write-off was included in the trading account or directly in the computation of income. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, emphasizing that the assessee's purchases were genuine, supported by VAT and Excise records, and that the A.O. had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the addition. The appeal by the Department was dismissed, confirming that the A.O.'s addition of ?1,38,32,012/- as undisclosed income was unwarranted. Order: The appeal of the Department is dismissed, and the order pronounced in the open Court.
|
