2004 (3) TMI 366 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,10,951 representing purchase of cement and expenses incurred towards soiling and concrete.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 20,000 deposited in a partner's account.

Analysis:

*Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,10,951:*
The appeal by the Department against the order of the CIT focused on the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,10,951, representing the purchase of cement and expenses for soiling and concrete. The AO disallowed a portion of the claimed expenses, citing lack of proper vouchers and discrepancies in the closing stock of cement. The CIT(A) acknowledged the inadequacy of the assessee's accounts but deemed the net profit rate reasonable, thus deleting the additions made by the AO. The Department contended that the expenses claimed were reasonable, and the net profit rate was justifiable compared to previous years. The Tribunal observed that the AO disallowed the claims arbitrarily without questioning the net profit rate shown by the assessee, which was considered reasonable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that interfering was unwarranted given the circumstances.

*Deletion of addition of Rs. 20,000:*
The second issue involved the deletion of an addition of Rs. 20,000 found in a partner's account. The AO treated this as income from undisclosed sources for the assessee. However, the assessee argued that the partner was separately assessed for tax by the same AO and that the deposit should be considered in the partner's assessment. The CIT(A) agreed, noting that the partner had confirmed the loan and was separately assessed. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the partner's identity was clear, and the loan confirmation absolved the firm of any irregularity. Citing a precedent from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the firm's explanation and the partner's confirmation discharged any obligation on the firm's part, leading to the dismissal of the Department's appeal on this issue.

In conclusion, both issues were decided in favor of the assessee, with the Tribunal dismissing the Department's appeal in its entirety.