2015 (9) TMI 1340 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of suppression of profit - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that no defect or the differences in the product, process, raw materials, end users etc. have been pointed by Revenue and the A.O has proceeded to calculate the income of the 2 units on a wrong assumption. He has further noted that the addition has been made on a hypothetical formula by the A.O. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has also relied on the decisions of Ahmedabad Tribunal of Associated Petroleum Corporation 2010 (8) TMI 755 - ITAT AHMEDABAD and the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vikram Plastics (1998 (8) TMI 43 - GUJARAT High Court) which has not been controverted by Revenue before us. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad dated 29.11.2010 for A.Y. 2007-08.
- Addition of Rs. 1,27,93,522/- made on account of suppression of profit.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad for the assessment year 2007-08. The case involved the addition of Rs. 1,27,93,522/- on account of alleged suppression of profit by the Assessee.

2. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (A.O) observed discrepancies in the gross profits of two units of the Assessee, one being a normal business unit and the other a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The A.O alleged that the Assessee inflated production in the EOU unit to suppress taxable profits and enhance exempt unit profits. The A.O added Rs. 1,27,93,522/- to the taxable unit's sales. However, the CIT(A) found the A.O's approach flawed, noting substantial differences in the two units' operations, which the A.O failed to consider. The CIT(A) emphasized that the addition was made on a hypothetical basis without concrete evidence.

3. The CIT(A) referred to relevant case laws, including a decision by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, to support the Assessee's case. The CIT(A) highlighted that the A.O did not identify any defects in the Assessee's accounts or accounting method, rendering the addition baseless. The CIT(A) directed the A.O to delete the addition and accept the Assessee's returned income.

4. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision. In the appellate proceedings, the Revenue reiterated the A.O's stance, while the Assessee's representative emphasized the differences between the units and the incorrectness of the A.O's conclusions. The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of defects in the Assessee's accounts highlighted by the Revenue and the flawed approach taken by the A.O. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order.

5. Ultimately, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence supporting the A.O's addition and the failure to identify any defects in the Assessee's accounts. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,27,93,522/- made by the A.O.