9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1163 - HC - Income TaxEnhancement of GP rate - Held that - Following Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Kanpur vs. M/s Carpet Palace, Rajpura, Bhadohi 2013 (9) TMI 447 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - The questions framed on the basis of rejection of books for low GP rate are not substantial questions of law - The material found during the search and seizure relating to AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, (included in the block assessment period) was not considered by the AO - The AO satisfied himself in rejecting the books of account and thereafter raising the G.P. rate arbitrarily - The ITAT has given sufficient reasons to find that in comparable cases the G.P. rate in the relevant financial year was from 9% to 21%, whereas the assessee had disclosed a much higher gross profit rate at 28.4% - There was no justification to increase the G.P. rate beyond the highest gross profit rate in comparable cases, when the assessee had disclosed a higher rate of 22.40% for AY 2005-06 and 22.42% for AY 2006-07 - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Income Tax Appeals challenging addition of gross profit by AO. Analysis: The High Court heard appeals arising from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the addition of gross profit by the Assessing Officer (AO) for two Assessment Years. The AO increased the gross profit percentage based on discrepancies found in the books of account. The department questioned the ITAT's decision to delete the additions, citing Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The key issues raised were whether the ITAT erred in law by not appreciating the discrepancies in the books of account and whether the absence of regular books of account during search justified the AO's actions. The Court noted that search and seizure operations were conducted post-assessment for the relevant years. The AO rejected the books of account due to lack of supporting documents and increased the gross profit percentage arbitrarily. The Court referred to a similar case where rejection of books alone was not sufficient grounds for increasing the gross profit rate. The ITAT found discrepancies in the AO's approach and compared the gross profit rates with similar cases, concluding that the additions were unjustified. The Court emphasized that the material found during search was not adequately considered by the AO for the relevant assessment years. Despite the higher gross profit rate disclosed by the assessee, the AO raised the rate without proper justification. The ITAT's analysis of comparable cases showed discrepancies in the AO's actions. The Court concluded that the appeals were based on factual findings and did not raise substantial legal questions. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the ITAT's decision. In summary, the High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeals challenging the AO's addition of gross profit, as the actions were deemed arbitrary and not supported by sufficient justification. The Court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant material found during search operations and upheld the ITAT's decision based on factual findings and lack of legal grounds for appeal.
|
