9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 720 - AT - Income TaxWhether ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that after applying net profit rate from business turn over further addition on account of insurance claim received and addition on account of other income credited to P&L account cannot be made while other income was clearly taxable as such and did not comprise of or could be related to business turnover - application of net profit rate of 0.70% after exclusion of insurance receipts and interest income on estimated sales Held that - CIT(A) without even having a look at the relevant books of accounts or bills/vouchers or even past history of the case accepted disclosed sales and rejected the treatment given to insurance receipts and interest income by the AO ignoring the fact that the best judgment assessment involves an element of guess work - power to make assessment on the basis of best judgment is not an arbitrary power. It is an assessment on the basis of best judgment of the officer - whenever best judgment assessment is made the court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case matter remanded to CIT(A)
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not allowing further additions to net profit from business turnover for insurance claim and other income. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by directing to apply net profit rate on the declared turnover instead of the estimated turnover by the AO. 3. Whether the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) restored. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Insurance Claim and Other Income: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by holding that further additions to the net profit from business turnover for insurance claim and other income could not be made. The AO had excluded an insurance claim of Rs. 6,88,400 and interest and other income of Rs. 2,40,780 while applying the net profit rate to the estimated sales. The CIT(A) directed the AO not to exclude these amounts while applying the net profit rate, stating, "once N.P. rate is applied there is no justification in reducing and adding some items of income and/or expenses in the income." The CIT(A) reasoned that net profit includes all types of sources and, therefore, after estimating the net profit rate, no further adjustments should be made. 2. Application of Net Profit Rate on Declared Turnover: The CIT(A) directed the AO to apply the net profit rate on the declared turnover of Rs. 2,27,79,55,904 instead of the estimated turnover of Rs. 2,28,00,00,000 taken by the AO. The CIT(A) found substance in the submissions of the assessee that the substitution of the estimated receipts was unwarranted in the absence of any information on record indicating unaccounted sales/receipts. The CIT(A) stated, "I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to accept the declared total receipts of Rs. 2,27,79,55,904." 3. Setting Aside the CIT(A)'s Order and Restoring the AO's Order: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s findings, arguing that the CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the AO before accepting the submissions of the assessee and did not ascertain the nature of the insurance receipts and interest income. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) should have considered the past history of the case or comparable instances while estimating profits. The Tribunal emphasized that the best judgment assessment involves an element of guesswork, but it should not be arbitrary and must have a reasonable nexus to the available material and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal stated, "The ld. CIT(A) rejected the method adopted by the AO, without adducing any cogent reasons." Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file for deciding the issues afresh in accordance with law. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order, keeping in mind the mandate of provisions of sec. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after allowing sufficient opportunity to both parties. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) should adopt a method that reflects the profits truly and justly, considering the principles laid down in the relevant judicial decisions. General Ground: Ground no. 3 in the appeal being general in nature did not require any separate adjudication and was dismissed. Result: The appeal was allowed but for statistical purposes.
|
