2015 (8) TMI 646 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment under section 69 - Held that - Before us the assessee could not reconcile the difference between purchases as debited in the trading account and purchases as per TCS certificate. Even the assessee could not produce books of account and clearly admitted that the assessee being a trader in Indian made foreign liquor does not maintain books of account. There is clear cut difference in the purchases and unaccounted purchases in both years could not be explained nor accounted for. The CIT (A) has rightly confirmed the addition as the assessee could not explain even now before us or could not reconcile the difference. In term of the above, we confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the same as undisclosed purchases added under section 69 of the Act. - Decided in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act for undisclosed purchases and profit for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Unexplained Investment under Section 69

The appeals by the assessee challenged the orders confirming the Assessing Officer's addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act for undisclosed purchases and profit. The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not properly consider all facts and circumstances, unjustly applied the Explanation to section 69, and arrived at a profit figure deemed hypothetical. The Assessing Officer noticed a variance between purchases debited in the trading account and those per TCS certificates, leading to the addition of undisclosed purchases and estimated profit. The assessee argued that the difference was a posting error, not unexplained investment, citing accounting principles. However, the Commissioner upheld the addition, noting the failure to produce evidence of accounted purchases or explain the unaccounted ones. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the inability to reconcile the purchase differences and the absence of maintained books of account, leading to the confirmation of the undisclosed purchases as per section 69.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the addition of unexplained investment under section 69 for the undisclosed purchases and profit, as the assessee failed to reconcile the differences, lacked proper documentation, and could not substantiate the claimed posting error. The decision aligned with the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the legal requirements under section 69 and the failure to discharge the burden of proof.