Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 16-02-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2004-05.
This appeal was filed with a delay of 37 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. After hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 37 days are condoned.
Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.8,35,483/- on account of suppressed GP.
4. Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. We note that a search and seizure action was conducted on 26-07-2005 at the residential premises of the assessee. Simultaneously, a survey action was also initiated u/s. 133A of the Act on the business premises of Everest Publishing House in which the husband of assessee is one of the Directors. Pursuant to the search, the AO issued notice u/s. 153A(b) issued to the assessee but no return of income was filed by the assessee. As there was no response from the assessee, the summons u/s. 131 of the Act issued requiring her personal appearance. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2001-02 on 17-09-2007 declaring a total income of Rs.5,83,220/- but however the AO on the basis of seized documents which is at page No. 15 i.e. loosesheet said to have been dated 07-04-2004 wherein the GP has been shown at 45.27% added an amount of Rs.8,35,483/- on account of suppressed GP. We note that the assessee claimed expenditure in the nature of typesetting charges and royalty charges over and above purchases recorded in the seized paper. The ld. DR submitted that such expenditure was not claimed in the earlier years and there was no debit to the account separately. The CIT(A) also observed that the assessee did not file any details regarding typesetting charges and royalty which was claimed to have been recorded in the seized documents and we find no such evidence to brought on record before this Tribunal. Therefore, we completely agree with the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) in its impugned order at para No. 44.4 and it is justified. The relevant portion of CIT(A) is reproduced here-in-below : “44.4 I have gone through the Trading A/c files alongwith the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 153A and it was noted that the gross profit declared in the Trading A/c was of Rs.18,63,882/- as against revised Gross Profit of Rs.18,47,307/- declared in the working furnished before me. No separate Royalty or Typesetting charges were mentioned in the Trading AI c filed alongwith the audit report. Total direct expenses were debited under the head 'Purchases' only which totaled to Rs.42,85,777/- as against purchases of Rs.32, 53,527/- recorded in thse seized paper. Appellant did not furnish any detail regarding typesetting charges and royalty which was claimed to have been not found recorded on the seized paper. Trading A/c filed alongwith the return and filed during the course of appellate proceedings did not match and therefore, not credible. No such claim was made before the AO. It is to be noted that for AY 2000-01, the Gross Profit before the search was disclosed at 14.39% which was revised upward to 31.18% after the search and in the publishing division, gross profit disclosed was 43.42%. In none of the Profit & Loss and Trading A/c, appellant has debited separate typesetting charges or royalty charges. No details were furnished separately in respect of party to whom royalty or typesetting charges were paid. Expenditure of this nature were claimed for the first time which were not pointed out before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, claim of appellant that there were expenditure specially during this year in nature of typesetting charges and royalty charges over and above the purchases recorded in the seized paper is not found genuine. AO was right in adopting the Gross Profit as found recorded on the seized paper as Trading AIc filed later was not credible. Addition made of Rs.8,35,483/- is upheld and ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.”
In view of the above, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance at 10% as against the 20% made by the AO in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The contention of the ld. AR is that the AO made said disallowance on ad hoc basis and the addition thereon is not maintainable for the reason the said disallowance made on the basis of estimation. The assessee is a proprietor of Everest Publishing House. The assessee has shown sales turnover of Rs.52,28,841/- from trading from publishing units and worked out the gross profit of Rs.18,63,882/-. The assessee claimed expenditure of Rs.15,36,581/-. The assessee was asked to produce evidence in respect of said expenses but however no evidence was produced before the AO. It was submitted that the voucher file of various expenses is not readily traceable. For want of evidence the AO disallowed the expenses at 20% and added an amount of Rs.3,50,837/- by allowing depreciation of Rs.3,37,035/-. The CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict disallowance at 10% excluding bank charges, salary, postage and telephone etc. We find that the search resulting to survey operation involving the Block Period 2000-01 to 2005-06, we find merits in the arguments of ld. AR of assessee that the vouchers relating to expenses were not traceable as it dates back to the Financial Year 2003-04 and requested to delete the addition restricted by the CIT(A) at 10%. Taking into consideration submissions of ld. AR and facts and circumstances of the case, we find the addition made on the basis of estimation, therefore, in the interest of justice, we restrict the addition to 5% as made by the CIT(A). Thus, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
Ground No. 3 is general in nature, hence, requires no adjudication and is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- (D. Karunakara Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 29th January, 2020 RK आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-12, Pune 3.
The Pr. C.I.T. Central, Pune ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
तनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune