9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 268 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69A - Assessee was unable to explain the source of cash deposit - HELD THAT - Assessee could not disclose the source of Rs.9.00 lacs substantially with corroborative evidence. He has not countered any observation of the AO and even had not filed such evidences which were placed before the ld. CIT(A) to check the veracity of finding. The ld. AR of the assessee on asking, expressed his inability to file those documents before us. He has also submitted that Rs.3.00 lacs pertained to his wife being Stridhan. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels that out of Rs.12.00 lacs disallowed by the lower authorities, the amount of Rs.3.00 lacs as Stridhan can be considered as a good gesture that the wife of the assessee might have saved such an amount as Stridhan and may have given to the assessee. Thus, Rs.3.00 lacs is allowed and remaining Rs.9.00 lacs is confirmed. Disallowing 10% of the raw material expenses - NP estimation - HELD THAT - AO has not pointed out any specific defects in the books of accounts, bills and vouchers maintained by the assessee. It is also noted that the books of account of the assessee are maintained day today and no defect has been noticed by the AO during assessment proceedings. The assessee has declared N.P. Rate of 11.80% as compared to N.P. Rate of 13.14% of immediately preceding year. This slight decrease in the profit is ignorable due to stiff competition in the market for the businessman. It is also noteworthy to mention that provisions of Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act prescribes that in case of non-maintenance of books of account, an assessee may declare his income at a minimum rate of 8%of the turnover and the same is accepted. It means that the Department is satisfied if an assessee declares profit at least at a rate of 8% but in the present case the assessee has declared N.P. Rate of 11.80% which is better than the rate so stipulated u/s 44AD of the Act. Hence, in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not concur with the findings of the lower authorities. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Addition of Rs.12.00 lakhs under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Disallowance of 10% of raw material expenses amounting to Rs.66,932/-. 4. Acceptance of additional evidence by the CIT(A). Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The assessee filed an application for condonation of a three-day delay in filing the appeal, citing medical reasons. The Revenue objected but left the decision to the Bench. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, which emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays to ensure substantial justice. The Tribunal found the assessee's medical condition to be a sufficient cause and allowed the condonation of the delay. 2. Addition of Rs.12.00 Lakhs under Section 69A: The assessee had deposited Rs.26,00,936/- in a savings bank account, and the AO questioned the source of Rs.12,00,000/- deposited on 10-07-2010. The assessee claimed the amount was from the sale of a shop and Stridhan from his wife. The AO found discrepancies in the declared opening cash balance and rejected the explanation, adding the amount under Section 69A. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting inconsistencies in the assessee's explanations and the lack of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also found the assessee's explanations unconvincing, particularly the Rs.9,00,000/- claimed as advance from a sale agreement, which lacked validity and registration. However, the Tribunal accepted Rs.3,00,000/- as Stridhan from the assessee's wife, reducing the unexplained amount to Rs.9,00,000/-. 3. Disallowance of 10% of Raw Material Expenses: The AO disallowed 10% of raw material expenses, amounting to Rs.66,932/-, due to the non-verifiability of the expenses. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. The assessee argued that the books were properly maintained and the slight decrease in profit rate was due to market competition. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not point out specific defects in the books of accounts, which were maintained day-to-day. The declared N.P. rate of 11.80% was found reasonable compared to the statutory minimum of 8% under Section 44AD. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs.66,932/-. 4. Acceptance of Additional Evidence by the CIT(A): The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in not accepting additional evidence submitted during the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the additional evidence and called for a remand report from the AO. However, the additional evidence was not found credible, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on this matter. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, Rs.3,00,000/- was accepted as Stridhan, and the disallowance of Rs.66,932/- was deleted. The addition of Rs.9,00,000/- under Section 69A was confirmed, and the CIT(A)'s handling of additional evidence was upheld.
|
