2012 (7) TMI 370 - AT - Income Tax

Challenge reopening of completed assessment u/s 147 - ad hoc dis allowances of expenses - Held that - A.O. himself admitted in his order that the details of expenses has been filed but the log book was not filed by the assessee. Therefore, he disallowed 20% of the generator expenses. As the assessee has furnished details of general expense and repair and maintenance no such adhoc disallowance is warranted whereas in respect of generator expenses the assessee has failed to furnish relevant documents, log book and others, therefore, the A.O. has rightly disallowed 20% of the expenses. Addition on account of estimated business income - as per recognized accounting practice on actuaries 6.5% of deposits mobilized by assessee forfeited - Held that - Without bringing any material on record or without any discussion in the body of the order the AO has observed that there may be income of Rs.84,00,000/- on account of forfeiture of deposits - there is no question of forfeiture of any deposit and from the material available on record, it is seen that the company is repaying the depositors year after year - The AO has not discussed in his order that in what type of business and how there will be a business yield @ 6.5 times - against revenue. Addition i.e. making imaginary disallowances out of expenses of non existent business - Held that - whatsoever has been given by the AO while disallowing admissible expenses on adhoc basis. The income has been estimated on imaginary basis which we have already deleted - in favour of assessee. Addition on account of rent received - Held that - Addition of Rs.1,54,000/- by mentioning Rent as other income is not acceptable as no discussion has been made in the body of the order that how this rent income is other income. In fact, the assessee in its Profit & Loss account of the Hotel business had shown rental income of Rs.1,68,650/- and it seems that AO had treated the rental income of hotel as income from other sources. However, no finding has been given by the AO that how the rental income of hotel can be treated as income from other sources - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowances of expenses on an ad hoc basis.
3. Attribution of certain expenses to a non-existent business.
4. Estimation of income from a non-existent business.
5. Separate addition of property income.
6. Carry forward of loss.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Proceedings under Section 147:
- Issue: The assessee challenged the reopening of a completed assessment under section 147, claiming there were no valid reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
- Judgment: The ground was not pressed by the assessee during the hearing, leading to its dismissal as not pressed.

2. Disallowances of Expenses on an Ad Hoc Basis:
- Issue: The authorities disallowed expenses under generator expenses, general expenses, and repairs & maintenance on an ad hoc basis.
- Judgment: The assessee claimed generator expenses for an existing hotel business but failed to produce a log book. The tribunal confirmed the disallowance of 20% of generator expenses (Rs.31,741/-) but deleted the disallowances of Rs.15,000/- each for general expenses and repairs & maintenance, as the details were furnished.

3. Attribution of Certain Expenses to a Non-Existent Business:
- Issue: The authorities attributed expenses such as commission, interest, and management & staff expenses to a non-existent business.
- Judgment: The tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's case for preceding years, where similar additions were deleted. The tribunal followed the same reasoning and deleted the additions, noting that the authorities had not provided sufficient evidence to support the attributions.

4. Estimation of Income from a Non-Existent Business:
- Issue: The authorities estimated income from a non-existent business using a formula that the assessee claimed was unknown and arbitrary.
- Judgment: The tribunal found the estimation to be hypothetical and unsupported by evidence. Referring to its previous rulings, it deleted the addition of Rs.46,60,000/-.

5. Separate Addition of Property Income:
- Issue: The authorities made a separate addition of property income, which the assessee argued was already included in the hotel business's profit and loss account.
- Judgment: The tribunal, following its earlier decision, deleted the addition of Rs.1,17,600/- for property income, noting that it had already been accounted for in the hotel business's income.

6. Carry Forward of Loss:
- Issue: The authorities held that the loss would not be carried over.
- Judgment: The tribunal did not provide a detailed discussion on this issue in the provided text, but it indicated that the appeal was partly allowed, suggesting that the decision on this issue might align with the tribunal's approach in other related matters.

Conclusion:
The tribunal's judgment largely favored the assessee by deleting most of the disputed additions and disallowances, except for the confirmed disallowance of generator expenses. The tribunal consistently referred to its earlier decisions in the assessee's case for previous years, emphasizing the need for evidence and consistency in tax assessments. The appeals for both assessment years were partly allowed.