2015 (8) TMI 1208 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - net profit assessed at 12 per cent. of the gross receipts and income was accordingly computed - Held that - The authorities below have given the reasons for rejection of the books of account. The assessee has failed to verify the genuineness of the opening and closing balance of labour payable. The details called for by the Assessing Officer were not furnished. The assessee failed to justify the quantitative and qualitative details of the closing stock. The queries raised by the Assessing Officer were not properly addressed. Therefore, these were the sufficient reasons for rejection of the books of account by the Assessing Officer. The findings given by the Assessing Officer are thus, not rebutted by the assessee to the satisfaction of the authorities below. Even during the course of arguments, assessee could not specify as to what is the illegality in the orders of the authorities below in rejecting the books of account. Therefore, considering the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below for rejection of the books of account, we do not find any justification to interfere with their orders for rejection of the books of account. The cross-objection of the assessee is therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground. - Decided against assessee. Reasonableness of the profit rate applied by the authorities below - Held that - AO has applied the profit rate of 12 per cent. for estimating the income of the assessee, however the history of the assessee suggests that the assessee at the maximum has shown net profit rate of 3.17 per cent. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, history of the assessee and objections raised by the Assessing Officer for rejection of the books of account, it would be reasonable and appropriate to apply profit rate of 8 per cent. as against 5 per cent. applied by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) because the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has failed to note that substantial defects have been pointed out in maintenance of the books of account which could not give the true picture of the profit earned by the assessee. Decided partly in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Estimation of net profit rate by the Assessing Officer.
3. Confirmation of rejection of books of account by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
4. Reduction of net profit rate by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
5. Applicability of past history and precedents in estimating net profit rate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Books of Account:
The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of account of the assessee, a contractor, under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary reasons for this rejection were the failure of the assessee to verify the genuineness of the opening and closing balance of labor payable, justify the quantitative and qualitative details of the closing stock, and provide sufficient documentary evidence for loans and other expenses. The AO noted that the assessee did not furnish the required details in the specified format and failed to submit the necessary documentary evidence for various queries raised during the assessment proceedings.

2. Estimation of Net Profit Rate by the Assessing Officer:
The AO assessed the net profit at 12% of the gross receipts based on the rejection of the books of account. The AO's decision was influenced by the non-verifiable nature of labor expenses and other discrepancies in the books of account. The AO cited similar cases where a net profit rate of 10% to 12% was applied and upheld by higher authorities.

3. Confirmation of Rejection by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the rejection of the books of account. The CIT(A) noted that the primary issue was the verification of labor expenses. The assessee failed to produce vouchers for labor payments and work agreements. The CIT(A) concluded that the books of account were correctly rejected under section 145(3) due to the lack of conclusive proof regarding the quantum of expenses and other discrepancies.

4. Reduction of Net Profit Rate by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):
Despite confirming the rejection of the books of account, the CIT(A) directed to reduce the net profit rate from 12% to 5%. The CIT(A) reasoned that past history of the assessee should be considered for estimating the net profit. The CIT(A) observed that in the assessment year 2005-06, the net profit was estimated at 2.84% against a declared net profit of 2.61%. Considering the turnover and labor expenses in the current and past years, the CIT(A) found it reasonable to estimate the net profit at 5%.

5. Applicability of Past History and Precedents:
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the history of the assessee. It was noted that in previous years, the assessee declared net profit rates ranging from 2.19% to 3.17%. The Tribunal also considered precedents where net profit rates of 10% to 12% were applied in similar cases. However, the Tribunal found it reasonable to apply a net profit rate of 8%, considering the substantial defects in the maintenance of books of account and the objections raised by the AO. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 8% for computing the business income of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Departmental appeal was partly allowed, and the cross-objection of the assessee was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the books of account but modified the net profit rate estimation to 8% instead of the 5% applied by the CIT(A). The order was pronounced in the open court on February 6, 2015.