9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 667 - AT - Income TaxTrading addition - G.P. rate application - Held that - Whatever defects pointed out by the AO are sufficient to reject the book results as purchases as well as payments of expenses were made in cash which has not been controverted by the AR. Therefore, we upheld the rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) of the IT Act. The Co-ordinate Bench has considered the assessee s cases from A.Y.2006-07 to 2008-09 for identical additions made by the AO by rejecting the books of accounts. It is general that GP rate cannot be constrained. The assessee has given cogent evidence for decline of the GP rate which has been accepted partly by the ld. CIT(A). The sales are constitute 56.70% of total sales. The reasons given by the assessee for decline of GP are verifiable from the bill which shows that grey stone purchase price has increased from 11.54% to 31.21% whereas brown stone price increased from 5.88% to 17.65% compared to preceding year. However, sale price had not increased proportionately as evident by the AR of the assessee which has not been controverted by the ld. AR. - Decided against revenue
Issues:
1. Restriction of trading addition by CIT(A) 2. Discrepancies in books of accounts and rejection under section 145(3) of IT Act 3. Justification of trading results by the assessee 4. Comparison of GP rates and reasons for decline 5. Applicability of case laws in similar situations Issue 1: Restriction of trading addition by CIT(A) The appeal and cross-objection were filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur regarding the restriction of trading addition. The Revenue's appeal questioned the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the trading addition from ?76,74,679 to ?9,44,204. The assessee's cross-objection raised concerns about the application of GP rate at 19.20% instead of the declared 18.31%. Issue 2: Discrepancies in books of accounts and rejection under section 145(3) of IT Act The AO observed discrepancies in the assessee's books of accounts, including the absence of a stock register, improper valuation of closing stock, and lack of maintenance of essential records like call details register and log book for vehicle expenses. Consequently, the AO proposed to apply section 145(3) of the IT Act, leading to the rejection of the books of accounts. Issue 3: Justification of trading results by the assessee The assessee, engaged in trading and export of sand stone and slate stone, declared a total turnover of ?10,66,63,644 with a gross profit of ?1,95,35,216. The AO noted a decline in GP compared to the previous year and highlighted various deficiencies in the maintenance of records. Despite the assessee's explanations, the AO rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3) based on past discrepancies. Issue 4: Comparison of GP rates and reasons for decline The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, considering the appellant's justifications for the decline in GP rate. The appellant argued that the purchase price had increased more than the sale price for certain stone qualities, impacting the GP rate. However, the CIT(A) restricted the trading addition to ?9,44,204 based on an estimated GP rate of 19.20% compared to the preceding year. Issue 5: Applicability of case laws in similar situations During the proceedings, the assessee cited relevant case laws like CIT vs. Jas Jack Elegance and CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udhyog to support their arguments against the additions made by the AO. The ITAT considered the evidence presented by the assessee, upheld the rejection of books of accounts, and dismissed the revenue appeal while allowing the assessee's cross-objection. In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the trading addition, considering the justifications provided by the assessee and the verifiable reasons for the decline in GP rate. The application of case laws and the assessment of discrepancies in the books of accounts played a crucial role in the final judgment.
|
