2014 (10) TMI 855 - HC - Income Tax

Estimation of the appellant s business profit at 2.5% of the total turnover - Held that - In the instant case when the assessee did not produce the books of accounts the assessing officer was not helpless. The assessee has been filing returns every year. In fact he has produced five years returns. It is from that they took the turnover because the turnover offered by the assessee for the year 2009-10 was comparable with the past five years turnover as reflected in the returns filed. They acted on that. However he refused to act on the profits shown in the said returns. No reasons are given for not relying on the said profits at the same time he has also not taken into consideration the comparable cases in similar business to come to the conclusion. Without any basis the assessing authority determined the profit at 8% the first appellate authority reduced it to 3% and the tribunal has reduced it to 2.5%. In coming to the said finding all the three authorities have declined to take note off the evidence by way of earlier returns. In that view of the matter what the authorities have done is a mere guess work and without any basis. That is not permissible in law as held in the case of RAGHUBAR MANDAL HARIHAR MANDAL vs THE STATE OF BIHAR 1957 (5) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA In that view of the matter the impugned orders are unsustainable. Hence the order passed by the tribunal is hereby set-aside. Matter is remitted back to the tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above. Decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order estimating business profit without basis and contrary to earlier accepted income.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the Tribunal's order confirming the authorities' decision regarding the estimation of the appellant's business profit. The substantial question of law was whether the Tribunal was justified in estimating the business profit at 2.5% of the total turnover without any basis, contrary to earlier accepted income, and under the circumstances of the case.

The appellant, engaged in the transport business with around 100 trucks, underwent a survey revealing a gross collection of nearly Rs. 52.85 crores and other income of Rs. 84.63 lakhs. The appellant offered a net income of Rs. 70.64 lakhs for taxation after claiming various expenses. However, the authorities were not satisfied with the correctness and genuineness of the accounts due to the lack of supporting documents. Consequently, the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the IT Act, estimating income at 8% of the total turnover.

The Commissioner reduced the income to 3% of the turnover, which was further challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence demonstrating the maintenance of proper accounts by the appellant. While the returns for earlier years were accepted, they were not sufficient to justify the claimed 1% business income. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the appellate authority to restrict the income to 3% of the turnover, which was further adjusted to 2.5% by the Tribunal due to the lack of comparable cases for reference.

The appellant argued that all accounts were maintained and audited, with profits declared below 1% of turnover for the past five years. The authorities' varying estimations of income, from 8% to 2.5%, were deemed improper and contrary to law by the appellant.

The revenue contended that in the absence of produced accounts, income estimation was necessary. Citing the RAGHUBAR MANDAL HARIHAR MANDAL case, it was emphasized that estimates must be based on evidence, not mere suspicion.

The Court held that the authorities' estimations without considering the evidence from earlier returns were baseless guesswork. The orders were deemed unsustainable, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of the observations made. Consequently, the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the appellant, partially allowing the appeal.