9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1585 - AT - Income TaxRejection of books of accounts - estimation of profit - estimating the income at 5 percent of gross receipts - Held that - On identical reasons in earlier A. Y. 2010-11 2015 (11) TMI 297 - ITAT DELHI no specific discrepancies or defects in the books of account of the assessee has been pointed out, nor any material was brought to establish that the purchases and expenses had been inflated or the sales had been suppressed and in the absence of any such material or finding given, there was no justification in invoking the provisions of Section 145(2) of the Act. Thus in the present case Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the book results without pointing any specific defects in the books of account. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of books of accounts. 2. Estimation of profit. 3. Taxability of interest received due to delay in payment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Books of Accounts: The common grievance in the appeals relates to the rejection of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO rejected the books due to unverifiable purchases/creditors, unverifiable wages and labor charges, and the non-maintenance of a stock register. The AO concluded that the books were not reliable and estimated the profit at 5%. The assessee's past assessment history showed similar rejections, which were not accepted by the first appellate authority or the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the AO had not pointed out any specific defects in the books of accounts and that the mere fact of a lower profit rate was insufficient to justify rejection. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must provide a clear finding on how the correct profits cannot be deduced from the method of accounting followed by the assessee. 2. Estimation of Profit: The AO estimated the profit at 5% based on past assessment history and added ?1,56,36,367/- for A.Y. 2011-12 and ?2,10,33,606/- for A.Y. 2012-13. The Tribunal noted that in previous years, similar estimations were not accepted by the appellate authorities. The Tribunal reiterated that low profit alone cannot be the reason for rejecting book results, and non-maintenance of a stock register is not always fatal, especially in the case of contracts where materials are consumed and charged to profit and loss. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned additions, as the reasons for rejection and estimation were identical to those in earlier years where the Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeals. 3. Taxability of Interest Received Due to Delay in Payment: The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether interest received due to delayed payments should be taxed as business income or income from other sources. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhary & Sons, which held that such interest is attributable to the business carried on by the assessee and should be taxed as business income, not as income from other sources. The Tribunal followed this precedent and allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground, confirming that the interest received is part of the business receipts. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directing the AO to delete the additions made on account of estimated profit. The Tribunal also held that the interest received due to delayed payments should be taxed as business income. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, reaffirming the consistency in the assessee's method of accounting and the inadequacy of the AO's reasons for rejecting the books of accounts. The judgment underscores the necessity for the AO to provide specific findings and reasons when rejecting books of accounts and estimating profits.
|
