2008 (2) TMI 325 - HC - Income Tax

Business of manufacturing and sale of bricks allegation of non-disclosure of sale of bricks in return of income-tax - Assessing Officer applied gross profit rate of 14% on the estimated sale - Tribunal held that the gross rate of 14% as applied by AO was highly excessive and without any basis - Tribunal applied the gross profit rate of 10% after considering the past history and the gross profit rate in subsequent years no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the ITAT was correct in restricting the addition to sales found unrecorded in the regular account books?
2. Whether the ITAT was justified in directing to apply a lower G. P rate than the A. O.?
3. Whether the ITAT was correct in restricting the addition of unexplained investment?
4. Whether the order passed by the ITAT was perverse as per the evidence on record?

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling bricks, filed an income tax return showing a total income of Rs. 74331. During scrutiny, discrepancies were found by the Assessing Officer regarding unrecorded sales. The AO estimated sales at Rs. 6766725 and applied a gross profit rate of 14%, resulting in an addition of Rs. 633772. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, stating that the books of accounts were to be rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, reducing the gross profit rate to 10% and adding Rs. 144000 for the disclosed sales by the assessee.

2. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the gross profit rate from 14% to 10% was challenged by the revenue. The revenue argued that the 14% rate was reasonable based on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order, noting that there was no instance of a comparable case provided by either the assessee or the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal considered past history and subsequent years' gross profit rates before deciding on 10%. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and no substantial question of law arose.

3. The ITAT's decision to restrict the addition of unexplained investment to Rs. 5000 instead of Rs. 80000 made by the AO was also challenged. The revenue argued that the unrecorded sales were much higher than Rs. 144000 and required a larger investment. However, the Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that the Tribunal's reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The revenue contended that the ITAT's order was perverse as it was contrary to the evidence on record. However, the Court found that the Tribunal had provided a reasoned decision based on the facts presented. The Tribunal's reduction of the gross profit rate and addition for disclosed sales were upheld as reasonable and justified. The appeal was dismissed, concluding that no substantial question of law was raised for determination by the Court.