9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 314 - HC - Income TaxSuppressed production - consumption of electricity for purposes other than production - ITAT confirmed CIT(A) order directing AO to apply the gross profit at 23 per cent. on the total turnover of ₹ 93,26,096 for the purpose of determining income from manufacturing against the gross profit shown by the assessee at 8.78 per cent. and confirmed the addition of ₹ 13,25,728.- Held that - The findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were not shown to be erroneous or perverse in any manner by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Further, in the judgment of the apex court in Melton India's case (1997 (1) TMI 471 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ), it was held that consumption of electricity can be one of the factors for drawing an inference that the assessee's intention to avoid tax was there. However, in the light of the findings noticed hereinabove, the addition on the basis of the gross profit rate of 23 per cent. on the total turnover of ₹ 93,26,096 in the facts and circumstances of the present case could not be faulted. No substantial question of law arises - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding suppressed production and gross profit rate. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Suppressed Production and Gross Profit Rate The original assessment involved an addition on account of suppressed sale of finished goods. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax directed a fresh assessment resulting in a further addition on account of suppressed production based on consumption of electricity. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to apply a gross profit rate of 23% on the total turnover for determining income from manufacturing, confirming the addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer rightly made the addition based on electricity consumption and that the gross profit rate applied was incorrect. The High Court examined the evidence related to power consumption and its relevance in determining income. It was noted that power consumption alone may not conclusively determine production, especially without corroborative evidence. The sample meter reading used was small, not from the relevant assessment year, and inconclusive. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the books of account, considered production results of comparable businesses, and applied a gross profit rate of 23% to sustain the addition. The Tribunal concurred with this decision, applying the same reasoning to determine the income of the assessee. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's argument, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities. The Court emphasized that while power consumption can be a factor in determining income, it must be supported by additional evidence. The method adopted by the Assessing Officer based on meter reading was deemed faulty, leading to notional taxation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal's approach of applying a gross profit rate after considering various factors was considered appropriate. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal, dismissing it for lack of merit. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of suppressed production and the application of a gross profit rate in determining income, highlighting the importance of corroborative evidence in such assessments. The decision emphasizes the need for a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant factors to arrive at a fair determination of income in cases involving disputed production figures.
|
