2012 (7) TMI 553 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act - grievance of the assessee is that the AO did not supply copies of the reasons recorded even when specifically was asked for from the A.O Held that - Before issue of notice under the section the AO shall record his reasons for doing so. Since the AO did not provide the assessee - reopening was bad in law, hence quashed. Addition made by rejecting of books of accounts - AO directed to estimate gross profit @ 22% by adopting the average Gross Profit of last six years as against 30% estimated by the Assessing Officer Held that - AO relied upon a part of a transaction for the preceding year while rejecting the other - This is not permissible in law - Without pointing out any error in the P&L a/c and the audited report, the powers of best judgment assessment could not be invoked. The principles of best judgment assessment do not appear to have been followed by the AO - in the absence of any specific adverse material on record, the AO was not justified in applying an adhoc gross profit rate which was rightly reduced by ld.CIT(A) addition deleted Addition made by rejecting of books of accounts Held that - AO is directed to delete GP addition because he has not pointed out single defect in the books of account in the year under consideration - AO has neither bothered to issue a show cause notice before rejecting the accounts of the appellant firm. Application of GP rate at 30% on receipts has been made by the AO without bringing any material on record to justify it, without even caring to mention that he is applying 30% rate as against 20.89% GP rate shown by the assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
3. Rejection of the books of accounts.
4. Estimation of Gross Profit (GP) rate.
5. Addition under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment for AY 1996-97 on the grounds that the reasons recorded for such reopening were not properly dated and did not give rise to a bona fide belief that any income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal noted that the reasons provided pertained to AY 1997-98 and not specifically to AY 1996-97, which was the year under consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening was not based on a specific reason related to AY 1996-97, rendering the proceedings baseless and against the provisions of the law.

2. Validity of the Reasons Recorded for Reopening the Assessment:
The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not indicate which particular income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for AY 1996-97. The Tribunal referenced the Gujarat High Court decision in Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel vs. ITO, which emphasized that reopening based on vague information for a roving and fishing inquiry is invalid. The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law and quashed the proceedings.

3. Rejection of the Books of Accounts:
The assessee's books of accounts were rejected by the AO, and the CIT(A) upheld this rejection. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO did not find any specific defects in the audited accounts or books of accounts. The Tribunal cited the case of Madnani Construction Corporation P.Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that low profit in a particular year alone cannot justify the rejection of books of accounts without specific adverse material. The Tribunal found that the AO's rejection of the books was unjustified.

4. Estimation of Gross Profit (GP) Rate:
The AO had estimated the GP rate at 30%, which was reduced by the CIT(A) to 22.02% based on the average GP of the last six years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not provide specific reasons or evidence for applying a higher GP rate. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not challenged the reduction in the GP ratio from 30% to 22.02%.

5. Addition under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The AO had made an addition of Rs. 29,320 under Section 41(1) on the grounds that the liability had ceased to exist. The Tribunal found that the unilateral action of the creditor, M/s. Yogiji Construction Co., in closing the account could not bind the assessee. The Tribunal held that there was no justification to conclude that the liability had ceased to exist for the year under consideration and directed the deletion of the addition.

Summary of Results:
1. Assessee's appeal in ITA No.3419/Ahd/2009 is partly allowed.
2. Revenue's appeal in ITA No.3348/Ahd/2009 is dismissed.
3. Revenue's appeal in ITA No.3431/Ahd/2009 is dismissed.

The Tribunal provided a comprehensive analysis of each issue, ensuring that the legal principles and relevant case laws were thoroughly considered. The decision emphasized the importance of specific and relevant reasons for reopening assessments and the necessity of concrete evidence to justify the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of GP rates.

← Previous Next →