2023 (10) TMI 374 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance on account of unaccounted sale of teak trees - assessee failed to explain the discrepancy in number of teak trees standing during the year under consideration - CIT deleted addition - HELD THAT - The finding given by the ld. CIT(A) that the entire teak trees were sold during the year appears to be correct and the contention of the ld. Departmental Representative that the documents were not provided based on the assessment order is not supported by the findings given by the CIT(A) as well as the submissions made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. There is no discrepancy as such pointed out by the AO related to the valuation of the teak tree given by the assessee as per the various documents. The so called discrepancy pointed out by the DR about the insurance policy report as well as valuation report is for the particular data entry and cannot be applied without any verification of the actual teak trees and its price per tree. The documents shows that the assessee has given all the details including the price adopted for sale rate as well the purchase price and therefore the findings given by the CIT(A) are correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A), thus ground no. 1 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Disallowance of income from other sources - DR submitted that the amount credited in bank account and books of accounts is not justifiable as the books in fact the accounting and tax treatment of the assessee company was rejected by the AO - As same amount was not received by assessee as payment for the sale of teak trees and there is unexplained credit in assessee s bank and books of accounts chargeable to tax u/s. 68 - HELD THAT - There is no reasoning given for rejecting the books of account and tax treatment given by the assessee company. In fact, no discrepancy has been pointed out by AO by rejecting the same. The assessee has given a reconciled order identification vis- -vis the original agreements made to the purchase and sale of teak tree during the year through various documents including the scheme as well as the summary of capital work in progress, allotment letters given to member along with the sampling certificate, register, showing money received from members permission received from tax department for sale of teak trees and all the relevant documents related to the same. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the said addition in respect of amount credited in bank account. Thus, Ground No. 2 of revenue s appeal is dismissed. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - As there is no concealment of particulars of income for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. In fact, all the relevant documents were present before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) and therefore the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) does not sustain hence is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance on account of unaccounted sale of teak trees.
2. Disallowance made on account of income from other sources.
3. Validity of the assessment order and related penalties.
4. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Disallowance on account of unaccounted sale of teak trees
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the unaccounted sale of teak trees amounting to Rs. 2,02,50,270/-. The AO had observed discrepancies in the number of teak trees and their valuation. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s finding that the entire teak trees were sold during the year was correct. The documents provided by the assessee, including the price adopted for sale and purchase, were deemed satisfactory. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed Revenue's ground.

Issue 2: Disallowance made on account of income from other sources
The Revenue also challenged the deletion of Rs. 1,72,92,000/- made on account of income from other sources. The AO had rejected the assessee's books and tax treatment, alleging unexplained credits in the bank account. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the disallowance based on the detailed submissions and reconciliations provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to reject the books of account and tax treatment given by the assessee. Thus, this ground of Revenue's appeal was also dismissed.

Issue 3: Validity of the assessment order and related penalties
The assessee, in its cross-objection, challenged the validity of the assessment order and the imposition of interest and penalties. The Tribunal found that the company is a corporation and not an agriculturist, thus the income derived does not qualify as agricultural income. Therefore, the grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order and related penalties were dismissed.

Issue 4: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The assessee also appealed against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal observed that there was no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. All relevant documents were presented before the AO and the CIT(A). Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, ITA No. 3655/Ahd/2015 filed by the Revenue and C.O. No. 13/Ahd/2016 filed by the assessee were dismissed, while ITA No. 1664/Ahd/2018 filed by the assessee was allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 06-10-2023.

← Previous Next →