2016 (8) TMI 358 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained credit - peak credit theory - Held that - When the assessee is engaged in parallel business activity, some closing stock may remain in hand and similarly some debtors may also be pending for recovery, thus in such circumstances peak of the bank account will not reflect the true income because on the date of peak credit some withdrawals and some sales are outside the peak credit. In our view, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee of adopting peak theory for considering unexplained credit. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute, and accordingly the ground of the appeal is dismissed. - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of contradictory findings by Ld. CIT(A) regarding undisclosed business transactions and income computation.
2. Application of peak theory for unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Rejection of peak theory by Ld. CIT(A) and adoption of asset expenditure theory.
4. Adverse directions given by Ld. CIT(A) for passing to other authorities without show causing the assessee.

Issue 1:
The appeal raised concerns about contradictory findings by Ld. CIT(A) regarding undisclosed business transactions and income computation. The appellant argued that the transactions represented sale consideration of undisclosed business transactions and should have been subject to section 44AF provisions. However, the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously computed income based on different findings. The appellant also highlighted the applicability of precedents supporting taxation on profit rate as per presumptive scheme u/s 44AF. The appellant sought deletion of the addition sustained and application of peak theory for a maximum sustainable addition.

Issue 2:
The issue revolved around the application of peak theory for unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The appellant contended that only the peak of deposits should be added as unexplained cash credit, not the entire amount which was deposited and withdrawn. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reduced the addition following asset expenditure basis, considering the nature of the deposits and withdrawals. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision and a High Court judgment to support the application of peak theory.

Issue 3:
The rejection of peak theory by Ld. CIT(A) and the adoption of asset expenditure theory were central to this issue. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) provided detailed reasoning for not applying the peak theory, emphasizing the nature of deposits and withdrawals in different locations. The Ld. CIT(A) analyzed the deposits and withdrawals, concluding that the peak credit theory was not applicable as withdrawals were not utilized for redeposits. The Ld. CIT(A) applied the asset expenditure theory for sustaining the addition, considering the undisclosed business activities and unexplained investments.

Issue 4:
The final issue concerned adverse directions given by Ld. CIT(A) for passing to other authorities without show causing the assessee. The appeal on this ground was not pressed by the Authorised Representative of the assessee, leading to its dismissal as infructuous. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision on this matter.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering and analyzing the various issues raised, including the interpretation of contradictory findings, the application of peak theory, the rejection of peak theory in favor of asset expenditure theory, and the issue of adverse directions given by Ld. CIT(A). The judgment provided detailed -comprehensive reasoning for each issue, ultimately upholding the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in the case.

← Previous Next →