9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 40 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit in the bank account u/s 68 - Addition on excess sales - Profit of excess sales - correct method to compare monthly sales with the previous year s monthly sales - HELD THAT - Abnormal sales in the month of October 2016 created doubt in the mind of lower authorities. The explanation of assessee about exceptional jump in the sales particularly in cash sales was that market is governed by various factors like agriculture sales, festivals and marriage seasons, was also not accepted by lower authorities. As independently considered such facts and find that there cannot be such abnormal jump in the sale all of sudden. However, facts remained the same that the lower authorities have not investigated the fats from the details of purchaser provided by the assessee. Therefore, avoid the possibility of revenue leakage instead of entire difference in sales the profit element should be taxed. Hence, we direct the assessing officer to treat 25% of profit on the excess sales identified by AO. To make it more clear, 25% of addition is treated as profit of the assessee qua the alleged unidentifiable sales. In the result, ground of the appeal is partly allowed. Addition u/s 115BBE - As directed the assessing officer to taxed the profit element only. The addition which is sustained to that extent be treated on account of business income and be taxed under normal provisions of the Act. Hence, ground No. 4 of the appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition of Rs. 18,07,500/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 3. Levying tax on the addition amount under Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Retrospective application of tax rate under Section 115BBE. Summary: Issue 1: Rejection of Books of Accounts under Section 145(3) The assessee's books of accounts were rejected by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the cash sales during the months of October and November 2016 were significantly higher than in previous months and years. The AO doubted the genuineness of these transactions, especially since the assessee failed to provide detailed customer information. The Tribunal found that while there was merit in the AO's suspicion, the lower authorities did not investigate the facts from the details of purchasers provided by the assessee. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 18,07,500/- as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68 The AO added Rs. 18,07,500/- to the assessee's income, treating it as unexplained cash credit. The assessee argued that the increase in sales was due to festival seasons and provided various supporting documents. The Tribunal noted that while the AO and CIT(A) had reasons to doubt the sales, they failed to conduct an independent inquiry. The Tribunal directed that instead of treating the entire amount as unexplained cash credit, only 25% of the profit on the excess sales should be taxed. Issue 3: Levying Tax on the Addition Amount under Section 115BBE The AO taxed the addition amount under Section 115BBE at a higher rate, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, directed that since only the profit element is to be taxed, this should be treated as business income and taxed under normal provisions of the Act, not under Section 115BBE. Issue 4: Retrospective Application of Tax Rate under Section 115BBE The assessee contended that the tax rate under the amended Section 115BBE should not be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue as it directed the profit element to be taxed under normal provisions, thus rendering the retrospective application argument moot. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed that only 25% of the profit on the excess sales be taxed as business income under normal provisions, rather than the entire amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and taxed under Section 115BBE. The rejection of books of accounts was deemed academic in light of the partial allowance of the appeal.
|
