2013 (9) TMI 898 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act Held that - Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Mills Ltd v. CIT 1953 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court and CIT vs. A. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar 1964 (4) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court , wherein it has been held that measurement of periodic income is, to some extent, a matter of estimation, based on certain acceptable principle of accounting. The computation of business income may differ depending upon the method of accounting employed. It is not the legal position that on identical facts, the same amount of income should be assessable in the cases of all the assessees - Adoption of the gross profit of account would not depend only upon the net profit. In the present case, from the chart of the gross profit, it is found that the gross profit was increasing progressively from the years 2007-08 to 2009-2010 Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act from an order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- Substantial questions of law regarding rejection of books of account under Section 145(3).
- Analysis of the method of accounting followed by the assessee.
- Consideration of net profit variations and gross profit trends.

Analysis:
1. The appeal raised substantial questions of law concerning the rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the accounts based on the lack of vouching for all expenses and a low Net Profit (N.P.) to turnover ratio. The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the appeal.

2. The Tribunal, in its decision, referenced several significant judgments, including the Privy Council's ruling in CIT v. Saranpur Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in various cases. The Tribunal emphasized that the computation of business income can vary based on the accounting method used and that periodic income estimation is acceptable within accounting principles.

3. The Tribunal also noted that the consistency of the assessee's accounting practices over the past seven years was crucial. It highlighted that the gross profit trend, as evidenced by the CIT (A)'s analysis, showed a progressive increase from 2007-08 to 2009-2010, indicating a reasonable method of accounting adopted by the assessee.

4. Ultimately, the High Court found no errors in the Tribunal's judgment and upheld its decision. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's application of legal principles regarding the rejection of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act. It deemed the AO's reasons for rejecting the accounts unsatisfactory and unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the Income Tax Appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court's detailed analysis of the issues raised in the appeal provided clarity on the legal principles governing the rejection of books of account and the importance of consistent accounting practices. The Court's decision underscored the significance of following acceptable accounting methods and considering the variations in net profit while assessing gross profit trends.