2015 (11) TMI 803 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment - addition u/s 69 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - he batteries were never purchased by the respondentassessee on one time payment, but, it was purchased on credit basis and hence, the amount which has been added in the income of the respondent-assessee which is ₹ 12,73,429/- as unexplained investment, could not have been added by the Assessing officer. So far as, rate of net profit is concerned, Gross profit rate fixed by Assessing Officer @ 15 % which has been reduced by the Commissioner (Appeal) as a net profit @ 6 %. This is also correct because the respondent has sold the batteries on a wholesale basis. The percent of the profit is much lessor because the prices of the batteries were also fixed. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Commissioner (Appeal) as well as by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the goods were purchased on credit basis looking to the statement of accounts, average margin of profit is 3.5 to 4.5 and hence, 6 % net profit fixed for the year 1996-97 and for the Assessment Year 1997-98 is also absolutely reasonable. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Assessment of "peak credit" without proper examination of books of accounts.
3. Upholding Gross Profit (G.P.) rate of 6% on undisclosed purchases.
4. Examination of assessment records and return filed by the assessee.
5. Perversity of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 17,64,699 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, claiming that only a portion of the amount was mentioned in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer calculated a 15% gross profit on the unaccounted amount, which was reduced to 6% by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing credit-based purchases. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the credit nature of the transactions and the reduced profit margin.

2. The issue of "peak credit" was raised concerning the proper examination of books of accounts to determine the correct working of this aspect. The appellant argued that the ITAT failed to refer this matter to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the purchases were made on credit, leading to the adjustment of the profit percentage to 6%.

3. The ITAT upheld the Gross Profit (G.P.) rate of 6% on undisclosed purchases despite the assessee showing a G.P. of 15% in previous assessment years. This decision was supported by the understanding that the wholesale nature of the business and fixed prices of batteries justified the lower profit margin. The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) and CIT(A) reasoning valid in this regard.

4. The assessment records and returns filed by the assessee were examined by the ITAT to determine the correctness of treating the addition as unexplained investment. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked a proper basis for treating the entire purchases as unexplained, especially considering the credit-based transactions confirmed by the supplier's statement of accounts.

5. The appellant raised concerns about the perversity of the ITAT's order, but the Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and documents. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s directions regarding the net profit percentages for the undisclosed transactions. The Tribunal's decision was deemed reasonable and justified based on the circumstances and evidence presented.

In conclusion, the High Court found no substantial questions of law involved in the Tax Appeal and dismissed the case based on the detailed analysis and reasoning provided by the ITAT regarding the treatment of unexplained investments and profit margins on undisclosed purchases.