2015 (9) TMI 72 - HC - Income Tax

N.P. estimation - Tribunal applied net profit ratio of 5.2% - Held that - We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned tribunal as well as learned CIT(A). When the evidences of total expenditure or purchase were not available with the revenue and consequently the assessee as well as A.O. both decided to determine the income by applying a reasonable estimate of profit and that estimation was found very near to the income offered by the assessee, the learned tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeals preferred by the revenue. - Decided against revenue. Undisclosed closing stock added by the Assessing Officer - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - We are of the view that learned CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and held that in the absence of any stock found at the time of search there was no justification to tax unaccounted stock in the hands of the assessee. We have also noted that the AO was not definite about the said stock; hence, no authentic finding was given but it was held by him that there might be stock in godown. We, therefore, hold that in such a situation learned CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition which according to him was based upon conjecture only.- Decided against revenue. Application of provisions of Section 40(A)(3) of the Act becomes infructuous, as once the question No.1 is held against the revenue and the judgement and order passed by the learned tribunal applying net profit ratio of 5.2% for respective Assessment Years has been confirmed, there is no question of further making any addition under section 40(A)3

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of net profit ratio by the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Applicability of Section 40(A)(3) on unaccounted purchases/expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Net Profit Ratio by the Appellate Tribunal:

In the case concerning the assessee, the primary issue was the estimation of profit on unaccounted transactions recorded in seized Kachcha Note Books during a search on the Dosani Group. The assessee firm, engaged in coal trading, had recorded both accounted and unaccounted transactions in these notebooks. The assessee declared additional income in compliance with a notice under section 153A, estimating profit at 5% on unaccounted cash sales. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disagreed, computing profit based on total unaccounted sales and purchases, resulting in a higher profit figure.

The CIT(A) compared the profit ratios and modified the additions made by the A.O., estimating the income for various assessment years. The CIT(A) found the income declared by the assessee in proximity with the income disclosed during the search, thus modifying the additions and deleting disallowances made under section 40(A)(3).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s modifications, noting that the assessee's estimation of gross profit at 5% was reasonable and close to the income offered. The Tribunal found no evidence of total expenditure or purchases available with the revenue, leading both the assessee and the A.O. to determine income by applying a reasonable profit estimate. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s approach and confirming the modified additions for the respective years.

For A.Y. 2007-2008, the Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition for undisclosed closing stock, finding no stock during the search to justify the A.O.'s assumption. The Tribunal affirmed a profit of Rs. 36,083 as computed by the CIT(A), rejecting the revenue's and assessee's cross objections.

The High Court concurred with the Tribunal and CIT(A), finding no error in their approach. The Court noted that when evidence of total expenditure or purchases was unavailable, the estimation of profit was reasonable and close to the income offered by the assessee. Thus, the Court dismissed the revenue's appeals concerning the application of the net profit ratio.

2. Applicability of Section 40(A)(3) on Unaccounted Purchases/Expenses:

The second issue involved the applicability of Section 40(A)(3) on unaccounted purchases/expenses recorded in the seized Kachcha Note Books. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both concluded that disallowances under Section 40(A)(3) were rendered infructuous due to the estimation of income based on unaccounted transactions.

The Tribunal referred to case laws, including Anand Swaroop & Co. Khandelwal and Hynoup Food and Oil Pvt. Ltd., to support its decision. It held that when income is based on estimation, the provisions of Section 40(A)(3) do not apply, as there was no concrete evidence of total expenditure or purchases. The Tribunal found that both the assessee and the A.O. decided to determine income by applying a reasonable estimate of profit, which was close to the income offered by the assessee.

The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, noting that once the net profit ratio was confirmed, there was no question of further additions under Section 40(A)(3). Consequently, the Court found the applicability of Section 40(A)(3) to be infructuous and dismissed the revenue's appeals on this ground as well.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed all the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's and CIT(A)'s decisions. The Court confirmed the application of the net profit ratio and found the applicability of Section 40(A)(3) on unaccounted purchases/expenses to be infructuous, thereby ruling in favor of the assessee.