9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 606 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of income - determination of N.P. - assessee is engaged in the business of (IMFL) liquor trade - Held that - The very same issue of estimation of profit in the trade of IMFL was considered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tangudu Jogisetty 2016 (7) TMI 379 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM and held that estimation of 5% net profit on purchase is reasonable and directed the A.O. to estimate the net profit of 5% on total purchases net of all deductions Unexplained investment - Held that - As the assessee did not place any evidence to establish the source of unexplained investment therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The assessee s ground of appeal on the issue is dismissed. Addition towards other income - Held that - We agree with the assessee that since the income is estimated by rejecting the books of accounts no separate addition required to be made on account of further expenditure/income. The assessee stated that the income was earned on the deposits made as guarantee deposit. The deposit made for securing the guarantee in connection with the setting up of business required to be considered while estimating the business income and the same cannot be taken as separate source. Therefore once the business income is estimated no separate addition required to be made towards the interest. Hence we set aside the order of lower authorities and allow the appeal of the assessee.
Issues:
1. Estimation of income in liquor trade business for AY 2011-12. 2. Addition of unexplained investment. 3. Addition towards other income. Estimation of Income: The appeal involved the estimation of income in the liquor trade business for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer initially estimated the income at 20% of total sales, resulting in a net profit of ?71,05,890. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) reduced the net profit to 10% of total sales. The appellant then approached the Tribunal, arguing that a coordinate bench had previously restricted the estimation to 5% of the purchase price in a similar case. The Tribunal noted that in a previous case, it had directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit at 5% on total purchases net of all deductions. The Tribunal found that the A.O.'s reliance on a High Court decision related to a different business was unjustified and directed the A.O. to estimate the net profit at 5% on total purchases net of all deductions, following the precedent set by the coordinate bench. Addition of Unexplained Investment: Regarding the addition of unexplained investment amounting to ?13,22,611, the appellant had made investments at the beginning of the business towards various expenses. The A.O. made the addition as unexplained despite accepting the source of a significant portion of the investment. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the appellant failed to prove the source of the remaining amount. The appellant argued that no separate addition should be made once income is estimated, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal found that the appellant could not explain the source of the unexplained investment and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add the amount. Addition Towards Other Income: The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that no separate addition should be made towards other income once the business income is estimated. The appellant's income from deposits made as guarantee deposit was considered part of the business income estimation and should not be separately added. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' order and allowed the appeal of the assessee partially. In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit at 5% on total purchases net of all deductions in the liquor trade business. The addition of unexplained investment was upheld due to the appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation, while the addition towards other income was set aside as it was considered part of the estimated business income. The appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal.
|
