9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 59 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69C - source of the expenditure - purchase of goods - accommodation entries - Held that - Section 69C of the Act stipulates that the deemed income(where the source of the expenditure is not explained)cannot be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. In other words, even if the assessee can justify the expenditure, but cannot explain its source, the section disentitles him from claiming a deduction on the deemed income under any head of income. In short, what is postulated in section 69C of the Act is that first of all the assessee must have incurred that expenditure and thereafter, if the explanation offered by the assessee about the source of such expenditure is not found satisfactory by the AO, the amount may be added to his income. In the case before us, expenditure has been incurred for purchasing goods and the assessee had explained the sources. It is not the case of expenditure that was incurred by the it was not entered in the books of accounts. The AO has nowhere held that as to how the explanation offered by the assessee about the source of the expenditure was unsatisfactory. Therefore, in our opinion, the AO had wrongly invoked the provisions of the section 69C of the Act. Considering the above, effective GOA, raised by the AO is decided against him. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
1. Disallowance of purchases from suspicious parties 2. Rejection of GP ratio and addition to income 3. Cross-examination of parties and principles of natural justice 4. Application of Section 69C for unexplained expenditure Issue 1: Disallowance of purchases from suspicious parties The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had made purchases from parties engaged in providing accommodation entries without actual business. The AO treated the purchases totaling to ?80.09 lakhs as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the purchases were supported by third-party evidence like transport bills and payment through bank cheques. The FAA also noted that the AO did not reject any of the evidences provided by the assessee. The FAA concluded that the disallowance of purchases as bogus could not be sustained entirely. Issue 2: Rejection of GP ratio and addition to income The FAA directed the assessee to explain the fall in the GP ratio, and after considering the submissions, estimated the GP ratio at 5.5% for the year under consideration. The FAA rejected the book results of the assessee under section 145 of the Act and added the difference between the estimated GP and the declared GP to the income. The tribunal reversed the FAA's decision, stating that enhancing the income without issuing a notice was not justified and that adopting a GP of 5.5% for all purchases was not supported by law. Issue 3: Cross-examination of parties and principles of natural justice The tribunal noted that the AO did not allow the assessee to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon for making the additions. The tribunal emphasized that the information from the sales tax department, although a good lead for investigation, was not sufficient evidence to make the addition. The tribunal highlighted the importance of observing principles of natural justice and concluded that the addition made by the AO could be deleted on that basis. Issue 4: Application of Section 69C for unexplained expenditure The tribunal discussed the application of Section 69C, which disallows deductions for deemed income where the source of expenditure is unexplained. The tribunal clarified that the AO wrongly invoked this section as the expenditure for purchasing goods was incurred, and the sources were explained by the assessee. The tribunal held that the AO did not demonstrate why the explanation provided was unsatisfactory, leading to a decision against the AO. In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the AO, emphasizing the importance of following due process, providing opportunities for cross-examination, and ensuring that additions to income are based on valid evidence and legal provisions.
|
