2019 (2) TMI 273 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - N.P. determination - Addition u/s.69 - sundry creditors in spite of the facts that assessee could not establish the aforesaid credits - Held that - CIT(Appeals) reduced the estimate of assessee s income as made by the AO by applying the net profit rate of 25% as against the net profit rate of 30% adopted by the AO, the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account of the assessee was upheld by him. After estimating the business income of the assessee at a substantially higher figure, AO proceeded further to make various other additions on the basis of books of account of the assessee, which were rejected by him. As decided in BANWARI LAL BANSHIDHAR and INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 1998 (3) TMI 121 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of rejected books of account over and above the business income estimated by him by applying a net profit rate were not sustainable and the CIT(Appeals) was fully justified in deleting the same. In that view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition on account of sundry creditors
2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment
3. Deletion of addition on account of current liabilities
4. Deletion of addition on account of investment in stock for undisclosed sales
5. Deletion of disallowance on pre-operative expenses
6. Deletion of disallowance on watch & ward expenses
7. Observations on additions under section 68 or 69 when books of accounts are rejected

Issue 1: Deletion of addition on account of sundry creditors
The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account of the assessee due to discrepancies in sales figures and estimated the business income at a higher rate. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the rejection of books but reduced the estimated income rate. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents to conclude that additional additions beyond the estimated business income were not sustainable. The ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on sundry creditors.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment
Similar to the first issue, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's additional additions based on rejected books of account were not sustainable. The ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition on unexplained investment as it was made beyond the estimated business income.

Issue 3: Deletion of addition on account of current liabilities
The ld. CIT(A) also deleted the addition on current liabilities like CForm and CST payable, as the Assessing Officer's actions were deemed unsustainable when the books of account were rejected. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of this addition based on the principle that no separate disallowances could be made on rejected books of account.

Issue 4: Deletion of addition on account of investment in stock for undisclosed sales
The Tribunal reiterated that the Assessing Officer's additional additions beyond the estimated business income were not justifiable. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on investment in stock for undisclosed sales was upheld.

Issue 5: Deletion of disallowance on pre-operative expenses
The ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance on pre-operative expenses, as it was based on rejected books of account. The Tribunal supported this decision by emphasizing that disallowances beyond the estimated business income were not sustainable.

Issue 6: Deletion of disallowance on watch & ward expenses
Similarly, the Tribunal agreed with the ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance on watch & ward expenses under section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal held that such disallowances based on rejected books of account were not maintainable.

Issue 7: Observations on additions under section 68 or 69 when books of accounts are rejected
The ld. CIT(A) made observations regarding additions under section 68 or 69 of the IT Act when books of accounts are rejected under section 145. The Tribunal supported the ld. CIT(A)'s stance that no separate additions under section 68 or 69 could be made when the business income was estimated based on rejected books of account.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete various additions made by the Assessing Officer beyond the estimated business income. The Tribunal found these additional additions unsustainable when the books of account were rejected and determined the business income on an estimated basis. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial precedents and principles when making such determinations.