2021 (10) TMI 1188 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of 10% of GP rate on the total turnover - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - The agreement with the parties, the affidavits, confirmation and appellant letter filed before the AO the appellant s letter for personal presence of the parties lifted goods are part of the records lying before us. AO observed that these documents were not produced before us though the same was in fact produced during the original assessment. CIT(A) found no basis to make this addition. Since the assessee has discharged its onus by producing the entire set of documents/evidence as mentioned hereinabove and in the absence of any adverse evidence relied upon by the AO. CIT(A) finally deleted the addition which according to us is of no ambiguity so as to warrant interference and hence, this ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed. Unexplained investment - HELD THAT - As total income of the assessee. However, there was an arithmetic mistake in calculating ₹ 1800000/- which should have been 1702500/- (2102500 400000). CIT(A) during the appellate proceeding went through the cash flow statement prepared on the basis of the copies of seized material taking into account the opening cash balance, bank withdrawals which is also made available before us being part of the Paper Book. Apart from that in the remand report dated 27.10.2010 available at page 10 to 15 of the PB so filed before us. The Ld. AO admitted such facts and the documentary evidences filed in its explanation of the sources of funds by the assessee and hence, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. According to us, there is no ambiguity in making such decision made by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the said is hereby confirmed. This ground of appeal preferred by Revenue fails. Cash sale of agricultural equipment - HELD THAT - CIT(A) while allowing the appeal alongwith this ground of appeal relied on the basis of the documents, facts and the remand report and further observed that the cash flow cannot be suspected in the absence of any adverse evidence relied upon by the Ld. AO which according to us is without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. This ground of appeal is allowed. Lifting the goods from the Custom Authorities - HELD THAT - AO has not mentioned anything except that this purchase was not accounted for without any evidence at all. In spite of having all seized material and the documents of Customs Authorities the AO has not verified the same. Neither has given any adverse comment on the audited profit and loss account. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that all above grounds are being discussed for the source of funds for lifting the goods from Customs and the appellant has already shown purchase in profit and loss account at ₹ 20260309/- In that view of the matter, the conclusion made by the AO that the said sales had not been reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee is without any basis and application of GP rate on the presumed sales outside the books of account leading to addition has been rightly found to be unsustainable in the eye of law by the Ld. CIT(A). Addition on account of specularity profit earned from sale of shares - HELD THAT - Case of the assessee is this that these were forwarded transactions, profit and loss is determined when the transaction gets finality otherwise carried forward with notional profit/loss and charges are debited by broker as badlaThe bills and the conciliation with Sh. Pradeep Bhalla Company has also been perused by us - CIT(A) in his order has deleted the addition on the basis of remand report and the facts that these were speculative transactions and this year these were carried forward and got finality in subsequent year i.e. AY 1993-94, he has referred the Ld. CIT(A) order for AY 1993-94. We do not find any ambiguity in such observation and decision made by the Ld. CIT(A) and hence, the same is hereby confirmed. This ground of Revenue is thus, dismissed. Unexplained cash deposits in bank - HELD THAT - As perused the cash flow statement available at page 36 of the Paper Book filed before us which reflects that there were sufficient cash available as on 30.04.1991 and also the sufficient explanation was made by the appellant. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted such addition. Hence, according to us the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same. In that view of the matter, ground preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. Addition on account of closing stock - HELD THAT - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis of facts, documents and remand report from the AO on the ground that the appellant has included this quantity while calculating the value of closing stock which is proper and thus, confirmed. This ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue fails. Addition on account of GP rate at 20% - HELD THAT - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis that the sales as per audited profit and loss account is much more than the sales as per Sales Tax Department because the exempted sales are not included in sales tax returns. Therefore, the estimation is not correct. Regarding GP of 20%, the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that despite logical explanation the estimation of turnover at 4.50 crore and 20% GP without bringing on record any sound reasoning for doing the same. There was no reason to reject the actual sale of ₹ 44011886/- and GP of 11.15% as of against the Ld. CIT(A) which according to us is without any ambiguity so us to warrant interference and hence, this ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed. Addition of notional interest on loan outstanding - HELD THAT - CIT(A) while deleted notional addition took into consideration this particular aspect of the matter that the Ld. AO has not given any weightage to the circumstances detailed by the assessee that the interest had to be weived to secure the principle. No document was further found during the search to suggest that the assessee had received the interest amount outside the books of account as of the observation made by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting such addition is according to us just and proper and we hereby confirm the same. The ground of appeal filed by the Revenue fails. Addition on estimate basis - Addition on the basis of the voucher containing payment of Visa charges by Vandana Goyal from whose residence the same has been seized - HELD THAT - As the voucher which was seized from the residence of Ms. Vandana Goyal was at ₹ 20858/- being the Visa charges of our travelling and thus, the same was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The same is thus, hereby confirmed. This ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue, therefore, fails. Addition on account of creditors - HELD THAT - Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition while doing so. He has relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Sugauli Sugar Works Ltd., 1999 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT . According to us, there is no ambiguity in such order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we confirm the same. - Revenue appeal dismissed. Unexplained deposit to the bank account - addition was made rejecting the cash flow based upon the documents including sales of agricultural euqipments - HELD THAT - CIT(A) while deleting the addition mentioned that the appellant has shown total sales of ₹ 11935611/- of agricultural equipment during the year 1992 and the AO cannot reject the cash flow on the basis of cash sale of agricultural equipments at ₹ 813000/- in the month of February, 1992. The reasons so recorded while deleting the addition by the Ld. CIT(A) seems to be adequate and hence, the same is confirmed. This ground of appeal preferred by Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed. Addition on account of interest at 18% of loans and advances - HELD THAT - The perusal or explanation given by the assessee shows that amounts outstanding as advance represents the transaction of sale by the assessee to the said concern and the amount outstanding is actually on account of the realization to be made of the sales amount. The confirmation filed by the assessee confirming the detailed transaction of purchases, part payment made as been recorded. The above said amount therefore, cannot be treated as advance free of interest. Addition based on difference of balances - HELD THAT - It appears that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis of the reconciliation filed by the assessee before the AO and before him as well without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. Hence, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?5,69,500/- on account of 10% GP rate on total turnover.
2. Deletion of addition of ?9,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment.
3. Deletion of addition of ?18,11,000/- and ?13,45,750/- on account of unexplained investment.
4. Deletion of addition of ?12,49,000/- on account of cash sale of agricultural implements.
5. Deletion of addition of ?15,08,644/- on account of lifting goods from custom authorities.
6. Deletion of addition of ?1,50,000/- on account of speculative profit from sale of shares.
7. Deletion of addition of ?1,50,000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank.
8. Deletion of addition of ?2,39,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit.
9. Deletion of addition of ?44,85,420/- on account of closing stock.
10. Deletion of addition of ?40,91,098/- on account of GP rate @ 20%.
11. Deletion of addition of ?13,99,170/- on account of notional interest.
12. Deletion of addition of ?1,00,000/- on account of expenditure on traveling.
13. Deletion of addition of ?6,00,000/- on account of creditors.
14. Deletion of addition of ?6,00,000/- on account of cash deposit.
15. Deletion of addition of ?2,95,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit.
16. Deletion of addition of ?13,03,279/- on account of loans and advances.
17. Deletion of addition of ?28,26,860/- on account of difference in books of accounts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of addition of ?5,69,500/- on account of 10% GP rate on total turnover:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?5,69,500/-. The assessee provided affidavits and agreements showing no margin or profit was to be charged, which the AO failed to disprove with adverse evidence. The CIT(A) found no basis for the addition, and the Tribunal agreed, dismissing the Revenue's appeal as devoid of merit.

2. Deletion of addition of ?9,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment:
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of ?9,50,000/- by CIT(A). The assessee had provided confirmations and bank statements to explain the investment, which the AO could not verify. The CIT(A) found the explanation satisfactory and without adverse evidence, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

3. Deletion of addition of ?18,11,000/- and ?13,45,750/- on account of unexplained investment:
The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions. The assessee provided a cash flow statement and bank statements to explain the transactions, which the AO initially found insufficient. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found the explanation and documentary evidence satisfactory, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

4. Deletion of addition of ?12,49,000/- on account of cash sale of agricultural implements:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?12,49,000/-, agreeing that the AO had no adverse evidence against the cash sales shown by the assessee. The CIT(A) relied on documents and a remand report, finding no basis for the addition, which the Tribunal confirmed.

5. Deletion of addition of ?15,08,644/- on account of lifting goods from custom authorities:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?15,08,644/-. The AO's addition was based on unverified assumptions, while the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found the assessee's documentation and profit and loss account satisfactory, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

6. Deletion of addition of ?1,50,000/- on account of speculative profit from sale of shares:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?1,50,000/-, agreeing that the transactions were speculative and carried forward to the next assessment year. The CIT(A) relied on a remand report and facts, which the Tribunal found satisfactory, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

7. Deletion of addition of ?1,50,000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?1,50,000/-, agreeing that the assessee's cash flow statement showed sufficient cash availability. The CIT(A) found the explanation satisfactory, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

8. Deletion of addition of ?2,39,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?2,39,000/-, agreeing that the assessee provided satisfactory evidence for the cash deposit. The CIT(A) found no basis for the addition, and the Tribunal confirmed this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

9. Deletion of addition of ?44,85,420/- on account of closing stock:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?44,85,420/-, agreeing that the assessee had included the quantity in the closing stock calculation. The CIT(A) found the AO's addition based on an erroneous understanding of the facts, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

10. Deletion of addition of ?40,91,098/- on account of GP rate @ 20%:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?40,91,098/-, agreeing that the AO's estimation of turnover and GP rate was without sound reasoning. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation logical and the AO's addition baseless, which the Tribunal confirmed, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

11. Deletion of addition of ?13,99,170/- on account of notional interest:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?13,99,170/-, agreeing that the AO's calculation was incorrect and did not consider the financial difficulties of the debtor. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation satisfactory, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

12. Deletion of addition of ?1,00,000/- on account of expenditure on traveling:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?1,00,000/-, agreeing that the seized voucher was for Visa charges and not an unexplained expenditure. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation satisfactory, and the Tribunal confirmed this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

13. Deletion of addition of ?6,00,000/- on account of creditors:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?6,00,000/-, agreeing that the AO's addition was without basis. The CIT(A) relied on a Supreme Court judgment and found the addition unjustified, which the Tribunal upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

14. Deletion of addition of ?6,00,000/- on account of cash deposit:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?6,00,000/-, agreeing that the AO's rejection of the cash flow statement was erroneous. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation and evidence satisfactory, and the Tribunal confirmed this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

15. Deletion of addition of ?2,95,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?2,95,000/-, agreeing that the AO's observation was erroneous. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation satisfactory, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

16. Deletion of addition of ?13,03,279/- on account of loans and advances:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?13,03,279/-, agreeing that the AO's addition was based on an incorrect understanding of the facts. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation and evidence satisfactory, and the Tribunal confirmed this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

17. Deletion of addition of ?28,26,860/- on account of difference in books of accounts:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of ?28,26,860/-, agreeing that the AO's addition was without basis. The CIT(A) found the assessee's reconciliation satisfactory, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s deletions of various additions made by the AO, finding the assessee's explanations and evidence satisfactory and the AO's additions baseless or erroneous.