2014 (9) TMI 427 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) Adoption of GP @ 20% against 40% - Held that - The assessee had suppressed sales and had also suppressed the expenses - once the books of accounts of the assessee are rejected, a fair estimate of the profits needs to be made Tribunal rightly held that the adoption of net profit rate by the CIT(A) was not justified once the books of accounts were rejected CIT(A) could not have applied the net profit rate while computing the gross profits - the Tribunal on the basis of the self same material has estimated the gross profit at 20% - the gross profit has been determined on the basis of estimate - The estimate to be made in a particular case is largely a question of fact the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in adopting gross profit rate
- Controversy over suppressed sales and expenses

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged a judgment regarding the adoption of gross profit rate by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The appellant questioned the Tribunal's decision to adopt a gross profit rate of 20% instead of the 40% adopted by the Assessing Officer on unaccounted sales. The Tribunal also allegedly erred in overlooking the fact that the assessee failed to dispute the Assessing Officer's claim that part of the expenses related to Suppressed Sales were already recorded in the regular books of accounts. The appellant contended that the average gross profit rate on accounted sales was 24.17%, higher than the 20% rate adopted by the Tribunal.

2. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) uncovered the respondent assessee's modus operandi of under-invoicing and collecting cash exceeding the invoice amount from dealers. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 74,99,328 based on the information from DGCEI on suppressed sales. The assessee was found to be declaring the same Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for different designs of tiles, leading to evasion of excise duty. The appellant argued that the assessee's evasion of duty was acknowledged by the Managing Director in statements to Central Excise authorities.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reassessment proceedings but reduced the addition by adopting a net profit rate for suppressed sales. The Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the revenue's appeal by setting the gross profit rate at 20%. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous as it did not consider the Assessing Officer's findings regarding expenses already recorded in the books of accounts. The Tribunal's estimation of gross profit at 20% was deemed inadequate given the circumstances.

4. The Tribunal justified its decision by stating that once the books of accounts were rejected, a fair estimate of profits was necessary. The Assessing Officer applied a 40% gross profit ratio, while the Commissioner (Appeals) used a net profit ratio. The Tribunal found the 40% estimation to be high and adjusted it to 20%. The Tribunal's rationale was that after rejecting the books of accounts, applying a net profit rate was inappropriate. The Tribunal's decision to estimate gross profit at 20% was based on the material available and did not warrant interference.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the Tribunal's decision did not raise any substantial question of law. The estimation of gross profit was considered a factual matter, and the Tribunal's approach was upheld as reasonable. The Court refrained from intervening in the Tribunal's decision, as it was based on a factual assessment of the available evidence.