9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 951 - HC - Income TaxUnexplained purchases - ITAT directing the estimate of addition as made by the CIT(A) be further reduced to 10% of the alleged purchases - Held that - It is non speaking and non reasoned order and as such no reasons have assigned while restricting the disallowance to 10% of the unexplained purchases. Therefore, as such the matter is required to be remanded. However, instead of remanding the matter to the learned ITAT considering the request made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, on merits we ourselves have considered the matter on merits and on the basis of admitted facts. It has come on record and it is not disputed by the Revenue that in the case of assessee GP rate was higher compared to the subsequent assessment year. The GP disclosed at the rate of 1.11% by the assessee is satisfactory as compared to AY 200001 where the GP was of 0.98%. Under the circumstance, in the peculiar facts and circumstance and considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Simit P Sheth (2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) where this Court confirmed the final order passed by the learned ITAT restricting the disallowance to 10% of the unexplained purchases, though not approving the method and manner in which the learned Tribunal has decided the appeal, however on merits and in the peculiar facts and circumstances narrated herein above, we confirm the ultimate final order passing by the ITAT. Consequently, present Tax Appeal is dismissed. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of ITAT's reduction of disallowance from 20% to 10% of unexplained purchases. 2. Application of the decision in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. by the ITAT. 3. Requirement for the ITAT to provide a reasoned and speaking order. 4. Consideration of gross profit (GP) rates in the assessment of unexplained purchases. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of ITAT's Reduction of Disallowance: The primary issue is whether the ITAT was correct in law and on facts in reducing the disallowance of unexplained purchases from 20% to 10%. The assessee, a trader in edible oils, was unable to produce certain parties from whom purchases were made, leading to the disallowance. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially disallowed 25% of the purchases, which was reduced to 20% by the CIT(A). The ITAT further reduced this to 10% without providing substantial reasoning or addressing the CIT(A)'s findings. The court emphasized that the ITAT must consider the legality and validity of the CIT(A)'s order and provide detailed reasons for any modifications. 2. Application of the Vijay Proteins Ltd. Decision: The ITAT relied on the decision in Vijay Proteins Ltd. to reduce the disallowance to 10%. However, the court noted that the CIT(A) had already considered and distinguished this case, finding it not fully applicable to the present facts. The ITAT failed to provide an independent analysis or justification for applying the Vijay Proteins Ltd. decision, which the court found to be an error. 3. Requirement for a Reasoned and Speaking Order: The court underscored the necessity for the ITAT to pass reasoned and speaking orders, particularly when exercising appellate jurisdiction. The ITAT's order was deemed non-speaking and unreasoned, lacking detailed consideration of the CIT(A)'s findings and the reasons for reducing the disallowance. The court cited several precedents, including Omar Salay Mohamed Sait and Rameshchandra M Luthra, emphasizing that every fact for and against the assessee must be considered with due care, and the Tribunal must provide clear findings and reasons. 4. Consideration of Gross Profit (GP) Rates: The court noted that the GP rate disclosed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year (1.11%) was higher than the subsequent year (0.98%), which had been accepted by the department. This fact was not disputed by the revenue and was considered significant in evaluating the unexplained purchases. The court, therefore, confirmed the ITAT's ultimate decision to restrict the disallowance to 10%, albeit criticizing the method and lack of reasoning in the ITAT's order. Conclusion: The court dismissed the present Tax Appeal, confirming the ITAT's final order to restrict the disallowance to 10% of unexplained purchases based on the higher GP rate disclosed by the assessee. However, the court reiterated the need for the ITAT to pass detailed, reasoned, and speaking orders, emphasizing that failure to do so would be viewed seriously. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the President and Vice President of the ITAT, Ahmedabad, to ensure future compliance with the requirement for reasoned orders.
|
