Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 527 - AT - Income TaxRejection of books of accounts - Estimation of net profit of Bengaluru and Mumbai branch - Held that:- It was not the directors of the assessee company who were individually responsible for furnishing the accounts of the respective branches of the company under their control but the company as a whole was responsible to furnish the correct details of income/accounts before the A.O. In the absence of furnishing of accounts before the A.O., the A.O. will be justified in his action in rejecting the said accounts and making the assessment on estimation basis. Although the A.O. had assessed the income on estimation basis in respect of Mumbai as well as Bengaluru office, but the ld. CIT(A) has observed that so far as the Mumbai office was concerned, properly audited accounts were submitted by the assessee, hence he did not sustain the estimation of Mumbai office. Since no accounts were produced in respect of Bengaluru office, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the profit/income worked out by the A.O. The ld. Counsel for the assessee could not bring anything before us as to how the estimation of income made by the A.O. in respect of Bengaluru office was wrong. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the A.O. in respect of Bengaluru office. The appeals filed by the assessee in respect of both the years are dismissed. Revenue has agitated the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that no estimation in respect of Mumbai office could be made by submitting that the books of account of the assessee were rejected in its entirety by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) - In this regard, it is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has held that since the audited accounts in respect of Mumbai office were submitted by the assessee, hence rejection of accounts of Mumbai office without any defects/reasons pointed out therein was wrong. Moreover, the Revenue has also not pointed out any defect in respect of accounts of Mumbai head office of the assessee company. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly accepted the audited accounts in respect of Mumbai Head office of the assessee company. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the estimation of income in respect of Mumbai head office and accordingly dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue for both the years.
|