2017 (4) TMI 1413 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - estimate the net profit from the sale of liquor @ 5% of the stock put for sale - Held that - We find that though the assessee is maintaining the books of account, the AO has clearly brought out that they are not reliable as the sale bills did not contain the details of what is sold, how much is sold and to whom it is sold and most of them are self made vouchers. Therefore, though the AO has not specifically mentioned that the books of account have been rejected, the fact that he has proceeded to estimate the income after recording a finding that it is impossible to arrive at the real profit of the business practically amounts to his rejection of the books of account. No irregularity in the estimation of the income. Confirm the order of the AO as regards the estimation of income is concerned. However, the rate of the estimation at 5% to the cost of the goods sold, in our opinion is on a higher side. Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Shri Kamlekar Shankar Lal 2013 (7) TMI 1108 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT wherein has held that a uniform profit rate of 5% of the cost of goods sold cannot be adopted in each and every case. In similar cases such as the assessee before us, the Tribunal has estimated the net profit at 3% of the cost of the goods sold.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of income based on estimation at 5% of the cost of goods sold.
2. Rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer.
3. Appeal against the order of the CIT (A) confirming the assessment.

Analysis:
1. The assessee, running a retail liquor outlet, appealed for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14, challenging the CIT (A)'s confirmation of the income assessment by the AO at 5% of the cost of goods sold. The AO, during assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, noted the absence of proper sale records and estimated the net profit from liquor sales at 5% of the stock put for sale, citing a precedent. The assessee contended that the estimation was unjustified, emphasizing the proper maintenance of books of account.

2. The Counsel for the assessee argued that the AO's income estimation without rejecting the books of account was unsustainable. Despite the absence of a specific rejection, the AO's reliance on the impossibility of determining actual profits indicated a de facto rejection. The Tribunal concurred, upholding the AO's rejection of the books of account due to unreliable sale bills lacking essential details. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the income estimation but deemed the 5% rate excessive.

3. The Tribunal referenced a High Court judgment to support a lower profit rate estimation. Noting that a uniform 5% rate may not apply universally, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute the net profit at 3% of the cost of goods sold, aligning with prior similar cases. Consequently, the assessee's appeals for both assessment years were partly allowed, reducing the profit rate and adjusting the tax computation accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the income estimation based on the rejection of unreliable books of account but revised the profit rate from 5% to 3% of the cost of goods sold, following precedent and ensuring a fair assessment for the assessee.