9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1425 - AT - Income TaxRejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) - estimating the net profit - Addition @ 7% of the total turnover by AO - CIT reduced the estimation of net profit by applying a rate of 0.5% to the turnover - HELD THAT - We are not in agreement with the contention of the Ld. D.R. that the basis adopted by the A.O. was correct. Having rejected the books of accounts of the assessee, the very same set of books could not have been relied upon for revealing the true profitability of the assessee, even though in part ,i.e relating to the period excluding the last month of the year, since admittedly the books were rejected not only for the reason that the transactions in the end of the year were managed to book losses but also on account of booking expenses of loading and unloading throughout the year which were found not verifiable,. The basis adopted by the ld. CIT(A), on the other hand we find is just and appropriate having considered the assessee s profitability in preceding year and succeeding years and the profitability in this line of business. We therefore uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) estimating the net profits of the assessee by adopting net profit rate of 0.5% of the turnover. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Estimation of net profit rate by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Books of Accounts: The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO noted significant discrepancies in the transactions carried out by the assessee, particularly in the last month of the financial year, where substantial losses were booked. The AO observed that these transactions were primarily with related parties, raising doubts about their commercial expediency. The AO highlighted that the purchases were made from M/s. Ruchi Global and sold to M/s. Indian Steel, both of which shared the same premises and had substantial interconnections. Moreover, the AO found that no bills were produced for verification, leading to the conclusion that the transactions were sham and intended to suppress profits. Consequently, the AO rejected the books of accounts and estimated the net profit at 7% of the total turnover. The CIT(A) upheld the rejection of the books of accounts, agreeing with the AO's observations regarding the dubious nature of the transactions and the lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the transactions with related parties were not in sync with the prevailing market rates and appeared to be designed to book losses artificially. 2. Estimation of Net Profit Rate: The AO estimated the net profit rate at 7% based on the profits earned by the assessee in the first 11 months of the year, which were noted to be 5.2% of the turnover. The AO reasoned that the transactions in the last month, which resulted in significant losses, were sham and intended to offset the profits earned earlier in the year. Consequently, the AO applied a 7% net profit rate to the total turnover, resulting in an addition of Rs. 5,04,16,478/- to the assessee's income. The CIT(A), however, reduced the estimation of the net profit rate to 0.5%. The CIT(A) criticized the AO's approach, stating that the AO did not provide any internal or external comparative figures from the sector to justify the 7% net profit rate. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO failed to analyze the assessee's financial results for earlier and later years, which could have provided a more accurate basis for estimation. The CIT(A) emphasized that the net profit rate of 7% was unrealistic for the trading of steel items, where the prevailing market trend showed much lower profit margins. Based on the assessee's profitability in preceding and succeeding years and the general trend in the industry, the CIT(A) estimated the net profit rate at 0.5%, resulting in a reduced addition of Rs. 19,16,511/-. Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s estimation of the net profit rate at 0.5%, finding it just and appropriate. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, which challenged the reduction in the net profit rate, and upheld the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed. The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 06-04-2022.
|
