2012 (9) TMI 191 - AT - Income Tax

Addition in respect of lorry hire charges payable and sundry creditors on account of the said credits being unexplained - Held that - A credit in the assessee s books of account, signifying a receipt, or a liability, has to be satisfactorily explained, to keep section 68 at bay. It is to be appreciated that any credit, trade or non-trade, is essentially a receipt , when construed or considered broadly, i.e., in terms of funds , and not narrowly in terms of cash . A receipt has to be satisfactorily explained as to its nature and source, else it is liable to be considered as income. In present case, matter, as discerned, is factually indeterminate, and requires proper verification and examination at the end of the assessing authority. Matter restored to the file of the AO Addition on account of net profit rate - dis-allowances in respect of various expenditures, for the reason of their being, not adequately evidenced - Held that - No addition in respect of N.P. rate would by itself arise, i.e., without bringing some adverse material on record, and stands rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Similarly, a mere cryptic statement as to the expenditure being not properly evidenced or fully supported, without pointing out any specific defects, including their nature, and which could easily be done by subjecting the same to a test check, would be of no moment. And, thus, no dis-allowance would arise in consequence - Decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition for lorry hire charges and sundry creditors.
2. Deletion of addition on account of net profit rate and various expenses.

Analysis:
1. Deletion of Addition for Lorry Hire Charges and Sundry Creditors:
The primary issue in this appeal was the deletion of an aggregate sum of Rs. 58,88,667/-, relating to lorry hire charges payable and sundry creditors, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)'). The Revenue contested the deletion as the credits were unexplained and lacked confirmations. The CIT(A) allowed relief based on the grounds that the credits were discharged in the following year and that section 68 could not be applied to trade credits. The Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A) and emphasized that any credit in the books must be explained to avoid being treated as income. The Tribunal highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to satisfactorily explain credits. The Tribunal also noted that the liability has to be shown as genuine, irrespective of the applicability of section 68. The case law cited supported the Tribunal's decision, leading to the reversal of the CIT(A)'s deletion.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Net Profit Rate and Various Expenses:
The second issue involved the deletion of addition concerning the net profit rate and disallowances for various expenses like telephone, travelling, general expenses, oil and fuel expenses, and car depreciation. The Tribunal found no basis for the addition based on the disclosed net profit rate of 1.46%. While the accounts' consistency raised concerns, no adverse material was presented to warrant an addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. Regarding the other expenses, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that vague statements about lack of evidence were insufficient for disallowances. However, minor disallowances for personal use by partners were deemed reasonable and upheld. The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal, sustaining some disallowances while deleting others.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on the deletion of additions for lorry hire charges and sundry creditors, emphasizing the need for proper explanation and proof of credits. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the net profit rate addition and various expenses, except for minor disallowances related to personal use. The Tribunal's decision provided clarity on the burden of proof for credits and the adequacy of evidence for expense deductions.