2010 (4) TMI 1238 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reduction of Gross Profit (GP) rate.
2. Addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained sale of jewelry.

Summary:

Issue 1: Reduction of Gross Profit (GP) Rate

Ground No. 1 taken by the Department and Ground No. 1 taken by the assessee relates to the common issue of addition made on account of low Gross Profit (GP). The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee's GP rate for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 was 4.6%, which was significantly lower than the GP rates of the preceding years (8% in 2002-03, 7.16% in 2003-04, and 7.8% in 2004-05). The AO made enquiries u/s 133(6) of the Act and found several discrepancies, including the inability to furnish addresses of certain parties, improper maintenance of books of accounts, and valuation issues with the closing stock. Consequently, the AO rejected the books of account and estimated the income by adopting a 6% GP rate, resulting in an addition of Rs. 30,19,867.

The learned CIT(A) called for a remand report and, after considering the submissions, directed the AO to adopt a 5% GP rate instead of 6%, allowing partial relief to the assessee. The Tribunal, upon review, found that while the rejection of books of account was justified, the estimation of GP at 6% by the AO and 5% by the CIT(A) lacked a concrete basis. Therefore, the Tribunal directed an ad hoc addition of Rs. 4,00,000 to the GP disclosed by the assessee, allowing the assessee's appeal in part and rejecting the Department's appeal.

Issue 2: Addition u/s 68 for Unexplained Sale of Jewelry

Ground No. 2 of the appeal taken by the assessee concerns the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 9,00,000 u/s 68 of the Act, being the amount received on the sale of jewelry. The assessee claimed to have received jewelry as a gift and sold part of it for Rs. 9,00,000. The AO, however, found discrepancies in the details provided, including the inability to verify the existence of the buyer, M/s. Bhootnath Jewellers (P) Ltd., and the failure to identify the agent involved in the transaction. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 9,00,000 to the total income u/s 68.

The learned CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, noting that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the sale transaction. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the sale of jewelry, and thus, the addition of Rs. 9,00,000 u/s 68 was justified.

Conclusion:

In the result, ITA No. 2002/KOL/2009 filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and ITA No. 1809/KOL/2009 filed by the assessee is allowed in part.

This Order is pronounced in open court on dt. 23.04.2010.