9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1811 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of profit - Bogus purchases - Addition on account of difference in purchase as per P L A/e. purchase register - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has merely made estimation of GP ratio of 20% of the turnover without disclosing the basis of arriving at the figure of 20% and how the income based on the said GP ratio of 20% in case of the assessee is honest and fair as per mandate of KACHWALA GEMS VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2006 (12) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT . We set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the extent of estimation of income of the assesseee based on GP ratio @20% of turnover done by the CIT(A) in his orders dated 29.02.2012 and direct the CIT(A) to pass an order estimating income based on GP ratio based on financial data s pertaining to the other entities belonging to the iron and steel industry so that honest and fair estimate of income of the assessee can be brought to tax. The assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and produce all the relevant material required by the CIT(A) for estimation of GP ratio based on financial data s pertaining to the other entities belonging to the iron and steel industry so that honest and fair estimate of income of the assessee can be brought to tax and such data as may be produced by the assessee shall be duly considered by the CIT(A) before making honest and fair estimation of GP ratio to determine correct income of the assessee chargeable to tax - Appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 30,09,819/- due to discrepancy in purchases. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,06,54,370/- for purchases from Harsh Enterprises and Precision Containers. 3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 26,26,083/- for purchases from Shreeji Enterprises and International Steel Industries. 4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 23,00,805/- for purchases from Panam Sales Pvt. Ltd. 5. Request to restore the Assessing Officer's order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 30,09,819/- Due to Discrepancy in Purchases The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,09,819/- made due to the difference in purchase amounts as per the Profit & Loss Account and the purchase register. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed a discrepancy of Rs. 30,09,816/- between the purchases debited in the P&L account and the details submitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 20% on the turnover, which was challenged by the Revenue. 2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 3,06,54,370/- for Purchases from Harsh Enterprises and Precision Containers The AO made an addition of Rs. 3,06,54,370/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, treating the purchases from Harsh Enterprises and Precision Containers as bogus since these parties denied any transactions with the assessee. The CIT(A) remanded the matter to the AO for a remand report, which confirmed that the assessee could not provide evidence to prove the purchases. The CIT(A) still restricted the addition based on an estimated GP rate. 3. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 26,26,083/- for Purchases from Shreeji Enterprises and International Steel Industries The AO added Rs. 26,26,083/- treating the purchases from Shreeji Enterprises and International Steel Industries as hawala purchases due to the assessee's failure to produce these parties with their books of account. The CIT(A) again restricted the addition to a GP rate of 20% on the turnover. 4. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 23,00,805/- for Purchases from Panam Sales Pvt. Ltd. An addition of Rs. 23,00,805/- was made by the AO on a protective basis for purchases from Panam Sales Pvt. Ltd. due to unverified details. The CIT(A) restricted this addition based on the estimated GP rate. 5. Request to Restore the Assessing Officer's Order The Revenue sought to restore the AO's order, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the additions to a GP rate of 20% without a proper basis. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not disclose the basis for arriving at the 20% GP rate and directed the CIT(A) to re-estimate the income based on financial data from other entities in the iron and steel industry. Conclusion: The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes. It directed the CIT(A) to re-estimate the income based on a fair and honest GP ratio derived from financial data of other entities in the iron and steel industry. The assessee was also directed to cooperate and provide relevant material for this estimation. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fair and honest estimate, in line with the Supreme Court's mandate in the Kachwala Gems case.
|
