2015 (10) TMI 527 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - Estimation of net profit of Bengaluru and Mumbai branch - Held that - It was not the directors of the assessee company who were individually responsible for furnishing the accounts of the respective branches of the company under their control but the company as a whole was responsible to furnish the correct details of income/accounts before the A.O. In the absence of furnishing of accounts before the A.O., the A.O. will be justified in his action in rejecting the said accounts and making the assessment on estimation basis. Although the A.O. had assessed the income on estimation basis in respect of Mumbai as well as Bengaluru office, but the ld. CIT(A) has observed that so far as the Mumbai office was concerned, properly audited accounts were submitted by the assessee, hence he did not sustain the estimation of Mumbai office. Since no accounts were produced in respect of Bengaluru office, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the profit/income worked out by the A.O. The ld. Counsel for the assessee could not bring anything before us as to how the estimation of income made by the A.O. in respect of Bengaluru office was wrong. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the A.O. in respect of Bengaluru office. The appeals filed by the assessee in respect of both the years are dismissed. Revenue has agitated the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that no estimation in respect of Mumbai office could be made by submitting that the books of account of the assessee were rejected in its entirety by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) - In this regard, it is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has held that since the audited accounts in respect of Mumbai office were submitted by the assessee, hence rejection of accounts of Mumbai office without any defects/reasons pointed out therein was wrong. Moreover, the Revenue has also not pointed out any defect in respect of accounts of Mumbai head office of the assessee company. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly accepted the audited accounts in respect of Mumbai Head office of the assessee company. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the estimation of income in respect of Mumbai head office and accordingly dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue for both the years.

Summary

Issues:
Cross appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 challenging separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A)-9 regarding the estimation of income for the company's Mumbai and Bengaluru branches.

Analysis:
1. Background and Assessment for A.Y. 2007-08:
The company, engaged in air/water purification systems, filed a return declaring total income as 'nil' for A.Y. 2007-08. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed discrepancies in the accounts of the Bengaluru branch prepared on estimation basis, leading to a disagreement on the true business income. The AO assessed total income at Rs. 66,77,547, combining the Head Office and branch income.

2. Appeal Before CIT(A) - A.Y. 2007-08:
The company contended that due to disputes among directors, Bengaluru branch accounts were not incorporated, affecting the assessment. The CIT(A) upheld the estimation for Bengaluru branch but rejected the estimation for the Mumbai branch, as audited accounts were properly maintained without errors.

3. Arguments and Decision - A.Y. 2007-08:
The company argued that the internal dispute hindered submission of Bengaluru branch accounts, emphasizing the High Court's involvement and arbitration award. The Department argued that the estimation was accurate due to the absence of audited Bengaluru branch accounts. The Tribunal noted the internal dispute but held the company responsible for furnishing accurate details, justifying the AO's estimation for Bengaluru branch and the CIT(A)'s decision.

4. Cross Appeals - A.Y. 2007-08:
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to accept the audited Mumbai Head Office accounts, disputing the rejection under section 145(3) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, supporting the acceptance of audited Mumbai Head Office accounts and dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

5. Final Verdict:
Both the company's and Revenue's appeals for A.Y. 2007-08 were dismissed, affirming the estimation for the Bengaluru branch and the acceptance of audited accounts for the Mumbai Head Office.

6. Overall Outcome:
The Tribunal upheld the AO's estimation for the Bengaluru branch due to the company's failure to submit audited accounts, while supporting the CIT(A)'s acceptance of properly maintained Mumbai Head Office accounts. The judgment emphasized the company's responsibility to provide accurate details for assessment purposes, leading to the dismissal of appeals from both parties.