9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 698 - AT - Income TaxAdmission of additional evidence u/s 46A - CIT rejected additional evidence - Held that - The reliance placed by the the assessee on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT V Mukta Metal Works (2011 (2) TMI 250 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) is misplaced in view of the facts being at variance. In the facts of the case before the Hon ble High Court, the additional evidence was in the form of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and an affidavit dated 27.12.2004 of the searched person. However, in the facts of the present case, additional evidence is by way of books of account being re-written including certain entries relating to sundry creditors, closing stock and even VAT in the provisional balance sheet, which as per the assessee were prepared on the basis of the books of account now written and permission for producing the same was sought from CIT(Appeals) as additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules. - Decided against the assessee. Addition u/s 68 - difference in the account of parties and further addition made by rejecting the books of account and also disallowance of expenses. - Held that - The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that there was a difference in the balance shown in the account of M/s Diwan Steel Industries of Rs.699,980/- and of M/s Regent Steel Industries of Rs.30 lacs, when compared with the copy of account of the assessee in the books of account of the respective parties. The assessee having failed to reconcile the difference except by way of additional evidence, which has not been admitted by us in the paras herein above, the addition made by the AO merits to be upheld in the hands of the assessee. Rejection of books of accounts - application of net profit rate of the earlier year - Held that - The assessee had failed to produce the books of account before the authorities below and the revised books of account produced by way of additional evidence have been rejected by CIT(Appeals) - there was no alternative left but to estimate the trading income in the hands of the assessee and application of net profit rate to the sales receipts shown by the assessee - Decided against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of assessed income against returned income. 2. Admission of additional evidence by CIT(A). 3. Additions confirmed by CIT(A) on various accounts. 4. Consideration of detailed submissions and willingness to produce books of accounts during appellate proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Assessed Income Against Returned Income: The assessee's appeal contested the confirmation of the assessed income at Rs. 44,12,380/- against the returned income of Rs. 2,43,980/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued multiple notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the assessee failed to comply with adequately. Despite repeated notices, the assessee did not furnish the required information or produce the books of account and vouchers, leading the AO to estimate the income based on the gross profit rate from the preceding year, resulting in the assessed income. 2. Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A): The assessee filed additional evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which was not admitted. The CIT(A) refused to admit the additional evidence, citing that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee, who failed to appear and furnish the requisite details. The CIT(A) applied the ratio of various judicial opinions, concluding that the assessee's non-cooperative attitude did not merit the admission of additional evidence. 3. Additions Confirmed by CIT(A) on Various Accounts: The CIT(A) upheld several additions made by the AO: - Addition of Rs. 6,99,980/-: This was due to the difference in the account of M/s Diwan Steel Industries, where the assessee showed a credit balance, but the creditor showed a zero balance. - Addition of Rs. 30 lacs: This was due to the difference in the account of M/s Regent Steel Industries, where the assessee showed a credit balance, but the creditor showed a zero balance. - Addition of Rs. 2,68,412/-: This was based on the application of a higher gross profit (GP) rate due to the absence of books of account. - Addition of Rs. 2 lacs: This was an ad hoc disallowance of expenses debited in the profit and loss account due to the failure to produce vouchers. 4. Consideration of Detailed Submissions and Willingness to Produce Books of Accounts During Appellate Proceedings: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to consider detailed submissions and the willingness to produce books of accounts during the appellate proceedings. However, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee had ample opportunity to present these documents during the assessment proceedings but failed to do so. The non-compliance and non-production of evidence during the assessment proceedings led to the rejection of the books of account and the estimation of income based on the GP rate of the preceding year. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO due to the assessee's failure to comply with notices and produce necessary evidence. The non-admission of additional evidence was justified under Rule 46A, and the estimation of income based on the GP rate from the preceding year was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal found no merit in the grounds raised by the assessee and confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
|
