2014 (1) TMI 181 - AT - Income Tax

Fall in GP rate - Held that - The book result cannot be rejected lightly without cogent and convincing reasons - The departmental representative could not point out any specific books of account which were not produced before the AO - The contention of the Revenue that the assessee must have maintained separate books of account for jobwork business and own trading business is without any legal basis and merely one set of books of account was maintained by the assessee for the entire business, it cannot be said that proper books of account were either not maintained or not produced - The fall in GP is explained to be attributable to commencing own production during the year - AO did not controvert this explanation - The estimate of GP at 18.11% even in respect of turnover relating to own trading of the assessee by the AO was without any basis and consequently untenable - Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of low gross profit.
2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS on freight charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Low Gross Profit:

The Revenue's appeal centered on whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in deleting an addition of Rs.58,44,127/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to low gross profit after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. The AO noted a significant drop in the gross profit ratio from 21.09% in the previous year to 12.04% in the current year. The assessee attributed this decline to the commencement of its own trading, which had a lower gross profit margin compared to job-work. The AO found this explanation unconvincing and estimated the gross profit by adopting the previous year's rate, leading to the addition.

The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, noting that the fall in gross profit was due to the new own production activities, which had a lower gross profit margin of 4.99%. The CIT(A) found the rejection of books unwarranted, as the overall increase in sales and the detailed explanations provided by the assessee were reasonable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to counter the assessee's explanations and that the rejection of books and estimation of gross profit were not justified.

2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS on Freight Charges:

The cross-objection by the assessee involved the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the disallowance of Rs.20,04,133/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-deduction of TDS on freight charges. The AO had disallowed the entire expenditure on freight charges, invoking Section 40(a)(ia) because the assessee failed to deduct TDS on payments made to various parties.

The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the assessee admitted the failure to deduct tax. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified as the assessee did not comply with the TDS provisions. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the disallowance should not stand if the addition for low gross profit was deleted, as the two issues were independent of each other.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. The deletion of the addition on account of low gross profit was upheld, as the CIT(A)'s findings were based on reasonable explanations provided by the assessee and the lack of substantial evidence from the AO to reject the books of accounts. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was also upheld, as the assessee failed to deduct TDS on freight charges, and the provisions of the Act were correctly invoked by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A).

← Previous Next →