9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 571 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69C - unexplained purchases - taxed the same u/s 115BBE - HELD THAT - The assessee is in the business of non-edible oil and other soap material therefore the profit embedded in unexplained purchases should be estimated taking into consideration the GP which has been shown in the identical industry. The past history of the assessee is best guiding factor of trade results. As decided in the case of CIT Vs Bhawan Va Path Nirman (Bohra) 2002 (4) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT has held that the past history of the assessee is best guiding factor. The fact remains that the Ld. CIT (A) estimated the profit on short stock by applying profit rate of 6.97% and the weighted average rate of GP is 7.96% for A.Y. 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 and 2017-18. Therefore keeping in mind the doctrine of equity justice and good conscious business income should be estimated @ 8% on the unexplained purchases. Addition of unaccounted sales - AO made the addition treating the same as cash sales out of the books in the hands of the assessee on the basis of documents found from Shubh Laxmi Group seized - HELD THAT - AO used the statement of Birendra Taparia against the assessee without providing the copy of the statement to the assessee and without providing opportunity of cross examination which is against the principle of natural justice. AO has not reproduced the relevant part of the statement in the assessment order although he mentioned in assessment order that he is reproducing the relevant part of statement. AO has made separate addition on account of unaccounted purchases and short stock treating the same as unaccounted sales therefore the separate addition on account of sales out of the books cannot be made. Therefore AO has not justified in making the addition on account of unaccounted sales.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment were: 1. Whether the assessment proceedings under Section 153A for A.Y. 2017-18 and under Section 143(3) for A.Y. 2019-20 were valid and lawful. 2. Whether the additions made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act for unexplained purchases and taxed under Section 115BBE were justified. 3. Whether the addition for unaccounted sales in A.Y. 2019-20 was valid. 4. The applicability of Section 115BBE for taxing the assessee at a higher rate. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Validity of Assessment Proceedings: The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment proceedings under Sections 153A and 143(3), claiming they were arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. However, this issue was not pressed by the assessee during the appeal, leading to its dismissal. 2. Additions under Section 69C for Unexplained Purchases: Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69C allows for additions to income when an assessee fails to explain the source of expenditure. The additions were made based on images found on a mobile phone during a search operation, which allegedly showed unaccounted cash transactions. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered the evidence from the mobile phone as valid, rejecting the assessee's claim that the mobile belonged to an employee. The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to substantiate claims with documentary evidence and the admission during search proceedings that the transactions were not recorded in the books. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the assessee could not verify the entries from the seized material with regular books of account. The Tribunal accepted the department's contention that the mobile data pertained to the assessee. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the entire amount of alleged unexplained purchases could not be added as income. Instead, only the profit embedded in these transactions should be taxed, considering the business nature of the purchases. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the images were not reliable evidence and that the entire purchase amount should not be treated as income. The Tribunal applied a profit rate based on past business performance. Conclusions: The Tribunal sustained a reduced addition by estimating the profit at 8% on the unexplained purchases for both assessment years, rather than the entire purchase amounts. 3. Addition for Unaccounted Sales in A.Y. 2019-20: Legal Framework and Precedents: The addition was based on documents seized from a related party, indicating unaccounted sales. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found procedural lapses by the assessing officer, including failure to provide the assessee with the seized documents and the statement of a related party used against the assessee. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the lack of direct evidence linking the assessee to the unaccounted sales and the absence of opportunity for cross-examination. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the addition was unjustified due to the lack of corroborative evidence and procedural fairness. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal sided with the assessee, emphasizing the importance of procedural justice and the inability to double tax the same income. Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the deletion of the Rs. 50,270/- addition for unaccounted sales. 4. Applicability of Section 115BBE: Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 115BBE provides for a higher tax rate on certain unexplained income. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer did not issue a show cause notice for applying the higher tax rate, which was a violation of natural justice. Conclusions: The Tribunal did not explicitly address the applicability of Section 115BBE in the final determination, focusing instead on the substantive issues of unexplained purchases and sales. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal established the principle that only the profit embedded in unexplained purchases should be taxed, rather than the entire purchase amount. This decision aligns with the precedent that past business performance should guide profit estimation. Core Principles Established: Procedural fairness is crucial, and any evidence used against an assessee must be corroborated and disclosed. The Tribunal emphasized that double taxation of the same income is not permissible. Final Determinations: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the additions for unexplained purchases by applying a profit rate and deleting the addition for unaccounted sales due to procedural lapses.
|
