2013 (11) TMI 471 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act - Various expenditure claimed in trading account are not verifiable as expenses towards loading and unloading, labour charges & transportation are not found properly vouched and supported by proper bills & vouchers. The payments were made through self-made vouchers Held that - Department is bound by the assessee s choice of accounting regularly employed unless it can be said that the method of accounting followed by the assessee does riot reflect the true income. The AO after a careful scrutiny, came to the conclusion that the system of accounting employed by the assessee is consistent and regular and the ITO, therefore, is not entitled to interfere with the system of accounting followed by the assessee, unless it is possible for him to point out inherent defects in books of account and bring the case within the terms of s. 145 of the I. T. Act. Decided against the Revenue. In the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT 1985 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court , it has been held that books of accounts for a businessman remains in the Womb of future In the instant case, action of the Assessing Officer in invoking section 145(3) was not in accordance with law. The CIT(A) also examined enhancement made in turnover by the Assessing Officer and found that there was no justification in enhancing the turnover and applying arbitrary G.P. of 4% - Therefore, deleted the addition of Rs.23,63,115/- made by the Assessing Officer. Increase in G.P. rate by A.O.- G.P. rate increased from 3.30% to 4 % - Held that - Enhanced the sale at Rs.22,02,584/- by applying G.P. rate of 4% - Assessing Officer before enhancement of sales has not given any queries and reason to the assessee. Though the assessee has submitted quantities and qualitative details, produced stock register, purchase and sale register and other related record. The enhancement of the sales is an arbitrary and not legal and regular. The Assessing Officer has not given any opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same and addition made by the Assessing Officer can not be sustained - The mere fact that there was a less rate of gross profit declared by an assessee as compared to the previous year would not by itself be sufficient to justify the addition Decided against the Revenue. Disallowance of depreciation and vehicle expenses to 20% on the ground of personal use Held that - 5% disallowance on account of personal use will be reasonable - Therefore, restrict the disallowance to 5% instead of 20% made by the Assessing Officer.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 23,63,115/- as extra profit.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 17,730/- as interest income from FDR.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 64,098/- out of various expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 23,63,115/- as Extra Profit:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 23,63,115/- added by the Assessing Officer (AO) as extra profit. The AO invoked Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, rejecting the books of accounts due to unverifiable trading expenses and applied a Gross Profit (G.P.) rate of 4% instead of the disclosed 3.30%. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the facts and invoked Section 145(3) without adequate basis. The CIT(A) noted that the AO's reasons for invoking Section 145(3) were trivial and not supported by evidence, especially given the organized nature of the labor sector involved. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's enhancement of sales was arbitrary and not legally justified, and the expenses were fully verifiable. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the mere fact of a lower G.P. rate does not justify the addition without specific findings of incorrect or incomplete accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO failed to point out any defects in the method of accounting or books maintained by the assessee.

2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 17,730/- as Interest Income from FDR:
The AO added Rs. 17,730/- as interest income based on AIR information, which the assessee failed to reconcile. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, finding that the assessee had received interest of Rs. 20,304.86 from HDFC Bank and deducted TDS of Rs. 2,123.91. The discrepancy arose because the AIR information only showed Rs. 17,730/- instead of the actual Rs. 20,304.86. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee did not conceal income or evade tax, and the addition was uncalled for. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, as the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence against the reconciliation provided by the assessee.

3. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 64,098/- Out of Various Expenses:
The AO made ad-hoc disallowances totaling Rs. 64,098/- across various expense heads, deeming them unverifiable. The CIT(A) deleted these disallowances, noting that the AO made them without proper justification or reasoning. The CIT(A) observed that the disallowances were capricious and lacked a basis in the actual extent of unverifiability. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) on the deletion of ad-hoc disallowances but modified the disallowance of vehicle expenses and depreciation. The Tribunal found the AO's 20% disallowance excessive and reduced it to a reasonable 5% for personal use of the vehicle. The AO was directed to recalculate the disallowance accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to extra profit and interest income, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s detailed reasoning. However, it partially modified the deletion of vehicle expenses and depreciation, reducing the disallowance percentage from 20% to 5%. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed, confirming the CIT(A)'s order with minor adjustments.