2018 (6) TMI 61 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of profit - AO estimated the profit @2.5% on the total turnover but CIT(A) enhanced the estimate of profit to 5.88% on the ground that the assessee must have made higher profit since all expenditures were considered while computing the book profit - Held that - CIT(A) enhanced the addition made by the AO without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the CIT(A). Considering the submission of the assessee and the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of substantial justice and fairplay, we provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) Charging of interest u/s.234B - Held that - Interest u/s.234B can be levied only on the returned income and not on the assessed income. See Ajay Prakash Verma case 2013 (1) TMI 140 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT .

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Estimation of profit on disclosed sales.
2. Treatment of additional turnover from bank deposits.
3. Addition/enhancement of income based on undisclosed turnover.
4. Charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B.

Estimation of profit on disclosed sales:
The assessee, a wholesaler in electronic and solar energy articles, challenged the AO's estimation of profit at 2.5% on disclosed sales, claiming a net profit of 1.4%. The AO applied Section 145(3) due to missing details of sundry creditors. The CIT(A) increased the profit estimate to 5.88%, justifying it by considering all expenditures. The Tribunal found the AO's estimate unjustified and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fair hearing.

Treatment of additional turnover from bank deposits:
The AO considered certain deposits in the bank account as additional turnover, estimating profit at 2.5%. The CIT(A) raised the profit estimate to 5.88%, assuming higher profit due to all expenditures being considered. The Tribunal noted the lack of justification for the AO's estimate and the CIT(A)'s unwarranted enhancement, directing the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue after providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present evidence.

Addition/enhancement of income based on undisclosed turnover:
The CIT(A) enhanced the income by ?1,85,612, presuming capital deployment for undisclosed turnover based on bank deposits. The Tribunal found the enhancement unjustified, stating no evidence of additional capital deployment. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper examination and a reasoned decision.

Charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B:
The assessee argued that interest u/s 234B should be levied only on the returned income, citing a High Court decision. The Tribunal agreed, following the High Court's ruling that interest should be charged on the total income declared in the return. The assessee's appeal was allowed on this ground for statistical purposes.

This judgment highlights the importance of fair assessments, proper justifications for estimations, and adherence to legal precedents in determining tax liabilities.