2019 (2) TMI 1649 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - G.P. estimation - HELD THAT - There is no presumption that the gross profit rate of earlier year will be the same in mathematical precision. A.O. has rejected the books of account only on the basis of surmises and conjecture. He has not found any defect in the books of accounts. He has also not rejected the explanation given by the assessee for the variation as compared to the previous year. In these circumstances de hors any cogent reason the rejection of the books of account and estimated addition on conjecture and surmise have rightly been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of rejection of books of accounts by Assessing Officer.
2. Correctness of addition made based on rejected books of accounts.

Analysis:
1. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) observed discrepancies in the profit and loss account of the assessee, indicating possible underreporting of income. The A.O. noted significant increases in various expenses and costs, leading to suspicion regarding the accuracy of the books of accounts. Consequently, the A.O. rejected the books under section 145 of the Act and made an estimated addition to align the profits with prevailing rates of material costs.

2. Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the A.O. did not specify any particular faults in the books of accounts but relied on assumptions to reject them. The CIT(A) emphasized that without concrete evidence of deficiencies, the rejection of books and subsequent addition made by the A.O. were unjustified. The CIT(A) highlighted that the A.O. failed to establish specific defects in the books to warrant their rejection, and therefore, the addition based on conjecture was deemed incorrect.

3. The CIT(A) further emphasized that the A.O. should have resorted to best judgment assessment once the books were rejected under section 145, rather than making additions based on the same books. The CIT(A) concluded that the A.O.'s actions lacked proper reasoning and were solely based on assumptions, leading to the directive to delete the addition made.

4. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the A.O. had not identified any defects in the books of accounts or rejected the explanations provided by the assessee for the variations in profits. The Tribunal emphasized that the rejection of books and subsequent addition were unfounded and based on conjecture, ultimately upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order to delete the addition made based on the rejected books of accounts. The decision was based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the rejection of books and the subsequent addition, emphasizing the importance of proper reasoning and factual basis for such actions.