2017 (4) TMI 1310 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - Income estimation - on the basis of average sales rate, the value of total unaccounted production was estimated - variation of 15% in consumption of electricity per metric ton of finished goods - Held that - CIT(A) has accepted the variation of 15% in consumption of electricity per metric ton of finished goods as per the report of the Committee. The same has already been followed by the Assessing officer in subsequent assessment year. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) while directing the Assessing officer to accept the books results shown by the assessee and to delete the additions made by the Assessing officer on account of unaccounted profits / unaccounted investment made on estimation basis as discussed above. The order of the CIT(A) is, therefore, upheld. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
Appeals arising from separate orders of CIT(A) Patiala regarding unaccounted production of finished goods leading to unaccounted sales and purchases.

Analysis:
The appeals, though relating to different assessees, were disposed of together due to identical facts and issues. The Assessing officer observed discrepancies in the electricity consumption vis-a-vis production of finished goods by the assessee company, leading to suspicion of unaccounted production. Consequently, the Assessing officer rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and estimated the income based on the average of electric units consumed per metric ton of finished goods over a period of 10 days.

The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that a committee's report allowed a 15% variation in electricity consumption per metric ton of finished goods. The CIT(A) held that once an issue was decided on merits in a subsequent year, a different view should not be taken for the year under consideration. Relying on the committee's report and the principle of consistency, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing officer to accept the books results shown by the assessee, thereby deleting the additions made on estimation basis.

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that in similar cases, internal guidelines allowed for a 15% variation, and no additions were made in subsequent years by the Assessing officer. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the internal guidelines and there was no infirmity in directing the Assessing officer to accept the books results shown by the assessee.

Given the above findings, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals of the Revenue as the issues and facts were identical across all cases. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed accordingly.