2018 (7) TMI 2137 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - Non rejection of books of accounts - CIT (A) is not justified in directing the A.O to estimate the gross profit at 12.61% as against 20% adopted by the learned A. O - appellant has maintained the books of accounts which are audited u/s.44AB - HELD THAT - We find that the High Courts in the matter of CIT v. Anil Kumar Co. 2016 (3) TMI 184 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , CIT v. Symphony Comfort System Ltd 2013 (10) TMI 258 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and PCIT v. Marg Ltd 2017 (7) TMI 823 - MADRAS HIGH COURT have held that no addition can be made on estimated basis without rejecting books of account of assessee. AO estimated the income based on the information obtained from KSBCL authorities disclosing the percentage of profit on sale fixed by the Karnataka government. It is not the case of the AO that the books were not properly maintained. Not even a word has been whispered by the AO that the books were not in accordance with the method of accounting, or were incorrect / incomplete. In our view, the laws commands us to set aside the assessment made on the basis of estimation, if the AO made the estimation without rejecting the books of account. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Justification of directing the estimation of gross profit at 12.61% instead of 20%.
- Applicability of estimating income without rejecting books of account.

Analysis:
1. Estimation of Gross Profit: The appeal was filed against the CIT (A) order directing the estimation of gross profit at 12.61% instead of the 20% adopted by the AO. The AO based the estimation on information obtained from KSBCL authorities regarding the profit percentage on liquor sales. The assessee argued that the books of account were audited and maintained properly, so the declared GP should be accepted. The AR contended that the GP addition was incorrect as the books were not rejected by the AO. The Tribunal referred to precedents where it was held that no addition can be made on an estimated basis without rejecting the books of account. It was emphasized that the AO did not mention any defects in the maintenance of books, thus the estimation without rejection was not justified. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the assessment made on estimation without rejecting the books of account should be set aside.

2. Income Estimation without Book Rejection: The Tribunal highlighted that Section 145(3) allows the AO to estimate income only if not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of the accounts, to make an assessment under Section 144. In this case, the AO estimated income based on external information without rejecting the books of account. The Tribunal cited a case where it was held that when books of account are maintained in accordance with accounting standards, they should form the basis for income computation. As neither the AO nor CIT (A) rejected the books of account, the partial addition made by the AO was deemed unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the entire addition made by the AO should be deleted, ruling in favor of the assessee based on legal provisions and precedents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of not estimating income without rejecting the books of account and ensuring assessments are made in accordance with the law. The judgment highlighted the necessity of proper justification for estimations and the significance of maintaining books of account in line with accounting standards for income computation.