2013 (6) TMI 287 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of net profit - as per AO appellant had not made qualitative detail of the diamond and N.P. has been shown very less - AO rejected books of accounts - CIT(A) deleted the addition -appellant is involved in the business of Diamond manufacturers, exporters and importers - Held that - A.O. calculated the N.P. @ .16% which was actually 60%. The appellant has received job charges on polishing the diamond through sub contractor. The N.P., after adding the salary to the partner is more than 1%. A.O. had not pointed out any specific defect in the books of account, except not maintaining qualitative stock and increasing outstanding labour charges liability. The total turnover of the assessee is more than 23.45 crore of labour charges receipts which did not include cost of the diamond which shows that the appellant had paid labour charges monthly more than Rs.1 crore. Thus, the outstanding labour charges are resulted of the business activity. TDS on payment of labour charges has been deducted by the appellant and payments made through account payee cheque. Thus, no reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A). Revenue s appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition of net profit by the A.O.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arose from the CIT(A)-V, Surat's order for A.Y. 2006-07, challenging the deletion of Rs.10,39,217/- addition made by the A.O. on account of net profit. The A.O. observed discrepancies in the appellant's business of diamond manufacturing, exporting, and importing, questioning the claimed net profit of 0.16% on a turnover of Rs.23,46,35,236/-. Issues emerged during verification regarding labour charges, processing expenses, and quality-wise details, leading to a show-cause notice to the appellant.
2. The A.O. found the appellant's net profit significantly lower than comparable concerns, raising concerns about underreporting income. Despite processing a substantial portion of rough diamonds, the appellant's charges were deemed low, indicating potential manipulation. The A.O. concluded that the appellant's income understatement was evident, citing the need for a minimum net profit of 1.5% based on comparable cases.
3. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the A.O.'s reasons for rejecting the books, highlighting the absence of machine ownership for diamond polishing and the appellant's gross profit at 3.38%. Citing precedents, the CIT(A) disagreed with the A.O.'s N.P. calculation and rejected the book rejection, emphasizing the lack of profit suppression and qualitative record necessity for job workers.
4. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the appellant's engagement in job work and commission agent-like activities. The ITAT found no specific defects in the books of account, supported by TDS deductions and payments through cheques. The appellant's N.P., including partner's salary, exceeded 1%, justifying the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the addition to the appellant's net profit. The decision emphasized the lack of specific defects in the books of account and the appellant's compliance with TDS and payment procedures, ultimately upholding the CIT(A)'s ruling.