2018 (7) TMI 1686 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69C - Held that - Section 69C would shows that section becomes applicable where the assessee has incurred any expenditure and offers no explanation about the source or the explanation offered by him was not satisfactory. The seized materials, GEQD reports and the statements of the assessee and various persons clearly go to show that the assessee has incurred certain expenditure more than what is stated in the invoices, and the assessee also failed to explain the source for such expenditure. Therefore, it is of the view that AO has rightly invoked and applied section 69C of the Act. The provisions of section 69C do not lay any pre-condition that the books of account should be rejected before invoking the section. CIT(A) has considered section 69C and gave a finding that the assessee has incurred expenditure more than what is stated in the invoice; assessee failed to explain the source for the expenditure. Therefore, Assessing Officer has rightly invoked section 69C of the Act and confirmed his order by the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this plea raised by the assessee is rejected. The statement given by Shri A. Viswanadham, sales head of M/s. K.K. Enterprises, dated 10/12/2008 has no relevancy, the same cannot be considered. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea raised by the assessee and the same is deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, we reject the same. The same plea has been raised before the CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) considered the same and observed that assessee has not given any explanation for the source of impugned expenditure incurred. It was only argued that the assessee has not indulged and no explanation was given on indiscriminating material noticed. As argued that sales admitted by the assessee was correct. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rejected the alternative plea raised by the assessee. In view of our above finding and also considering the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in respect of alternative plea with regard to profit element, we find no merit in the plea raised by the assessee, the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10; Recalling order to adjudicate specific grounds; Grounds raised regarding reliance on information from DRI Department of Customs Authorities; Invocation of Section 69C of the I.T. Act; Under invoicing of imported goods; Alternative plea regarding under invoicing sales.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reliance on Information from DRI Department of Customs Authorities
The appellant contended that the authorities relied solely on information from the DRI Department of Customs Authorities without independent inquiry. The Department argued that no material was submitted by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide any independent information at any stage. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the information furnished by the DRI Department of Customs Authorities.

Issue 2: Invocation of Section 69C of the I.T. Act
The appellant argued that Section 69C was inapplicable to the case. However, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Section 69C as the appellant failed to explain certain expenditures and their sources adequately. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in invoking and applying Section 69C.

Issue 3: Under Invoicing of Imported Goods
Regarding the under invoicing of imported goods, the appellant claimed that only the profit element should be added, not the entire amount. The DRI authorities concluded that the appellant was involved in under valuing imported goods to avoid customs duty. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not provide evidence regarding under invoicing sales. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's plea, citing lack of merit and supporting the findings of the lower authorities.

Issue 4: Alternative Plea on Under Invoicing Sales
The appellant's alternative plea on under invoicing sales was also rejected. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not substantiate claims of under invoicing sales and failed to provide evidence supporting this assertion. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in rejecting the alternative plea.

Final Decision
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the appellant in all the appeals related to the issues of reliance on DRI information, invocation of Section 69C, under invoicing of imported goods, and alternative plea on under invoicing sales. The Tribunal pronounced the order on July 25, 2018, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities in the matter.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, detailing the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's findings and decisions on each issue.