9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 5,75,436 for alleged inflation in the purchase price of raw cashew nuts. 2. Addition of Rs. 3,50,000 and Rs. 3,00,000 from M/s D.K.B. & Co. 3. Addition of Rs. 2,50,000 loan from Navbharath Children's Educational and Maintenance Trust. 4. Addition of Rs. 2,75,000 credited in the name of Smt. Chandramathy. 5. Disallowance of kist arrears amounting to Rs. 22,831. 6. Addition of Rs. 2,00,000 under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 7. Additional grounds of appeal regarding the assessment order's validity under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147(a). Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 5,75,436 for Alleged Inflation in Purchase Price of Raw Cashew Nuts: The assessee objected to the addition of Rs. 5,75,436, representing inflation in the purchase price of raw cashew nuts. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed corrections in the journal entries that increased the purchase prices and concluded that these corrections were deliberate to reduce profits. The AO relied on statements from brokers denying transactions with the assessee, but the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine these brokers. The Tribunal found that the corrections were confined to journal entries and not reflected in the ledger accounts, indicating no deliberate inflation. The Tribunal rejected the brokers' statements due to lack of cross-examination and found that the purchases and payments were genuine, primarily made through telegraphic transfers (TT) and occasionally by cash. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not support the AO's finding of inflation and deleted most of the addition, sustaining only Rs. 1,00,000 due to the defective nature of the accounts. 2. Addition of Rs. 3,50,000 and Rs. 3,00,000 from M/s D.K.B. & Co.: The AO added Rs. 3,50,000 introduced in the cash book and Rs. 3,00,000 as capital in the new firm of M/s D.K.B. & Co., treating them as unexplained income. The CIT(A) deleted the Rs. 3,00,000 addition, finding it was a book transfer from the previous firm. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, stating the capital transfer was through account transfers and the Revenue did not disprove the statement. Regarding the Rs. 3,50,000, the Tribunal found that the AO should have given credit for the assessee's share of the stock realization, reducing the unexplained amount to Rs. 2,58,434. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted an alternative plea that the opening cash balance of Rs. 3,15,000, assessed to wealth-tax, should be considered available for introduction, deleting the addition. 3. Addition of Rs. 2,50,000 Loan from Navbharath Children's Educational and Maintenance Trust: The AO added Rs. 2,50,000 credited as a loan from the trust, which the assessee managed. The AO disbelieved the loan due to lack of books and the trust's dissolution. The Tribunal found that while the trust had income, the explanation of idle funds could not be fully accepted. However, it allowed Rs. 39,240, the net agricultural income for the financial year 1986-87, as available for introduction, partially deleting the addition. 4. Addition of Rs. 2,75,000 Credited in the Name of Smt. Chandramathy: The AO disbelieved the source of Rs. 2,75,000 credited in the name of the assessee's wife, Smt. Chandramathy, due to inconsistencies in her statements and lack of returns. The Tribunal found no conflict in her statements and accepted that she had the resources, including agricultural income and investments, to make the loan. The addition was deleted. 5. Disallowance of Kist Arrears Amounting to Rs. 22,831: The disallowance was made because the assessee was not conducting Abkari business during the relevant year, and the kist arrears related to a firm in which the assessee was a partner. The Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with this disallowance. 6. Addition of Rs. 2,00,000 under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961: The CIT(A) set aside the addition of Rs. 2,00,000, said to be repaid by Smt. Indira Rani, and restored the issue to the AO for further consideration due to lack of cross-examination opportunity. The Tribunal upheld this direction. 7. Additional Grounds of Appeal Regarding the Assessment Order's Validity: The assessee raised additional grounds challenging the assessment order's validity under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147(a), arguing it was barred by limitation and lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the AO had reason to believe income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to file a return. The Tribunal upheld the assessment, stating the extended time limit under s. 153(2) applied, and the assessment was completed within this period. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting several additions and sustaining others, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
|
