2016 (11) TMI 802 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - Held that - We are of the opinion that the books of accounts ought not have been rejected by the Assessing Officer. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the CIT (Appeals) and the books of accounts have been rejected on the ground of variation of production and he has not found any irregularity in the books of accounts by way of remittance of any amount or any expenses or any material which has been found by the AO during assessment. Taking into account the provisions of Section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, the issues are required to be answered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reverted and the view taken by the CIT (Appeals) is required to be restored. - Decided in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Tribunal's judgment on partial allowance of appeals by assessee and department, substantial questions of law for assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96, rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(2) of Income Tax Act, variation in production, gross profit rate, and net profit analysis.

Analysis:
1. Substantial Questions of Law: The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision on substantial questions of law for each assessment year. These questions primarily revolved around the justification of adverse inferences drawn by the Assessing Authority regarding shortages/wastages and gross profit rate, despite the appellant maintaining books of accounts in accordance with accepted practices. The appellant contested the Tribunal's findings as perverse, questioning the basis for trading additions and the invocation of Section 145(1) of the IT Act.

2. Variation in Production: The appellant's counsel highlighted the nature of the business based on agricultural produce, emphasizing the impact of factors like seed quality on final product outcomes. The Assessing Officer noted a slight difference in production percentages between years, attributing it to the quality of mustard seeds crushed. The CIT (Appeals) acknowledged proper maintenance of books of accounts and rejected the Assessing Officer's addition, emphasizing the absence of defects or irregularities in the accounts.

3. Gross Profit Rate Analysis: The respondent's counsel presented a comparative statement of gross profit and net profit for thirteen years, demonstrating varying profit rates. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision was justifiable based on the average net profit ranging from 0.60% to 6.07%. However, the Court, considering the CIT (Appeals) observations, concluded that the Assessing Officer unjustly rejected the books of accounts without evidence of irregularities, leading to a favorable decision for the assessee.

4. Judgment and Decision: After hearing both parties, the Court agreed with the CIT (Appeals) that the books of accounts should not have been rejected by the Assessing Officer. Citing Section 145(2) of the IT Act, the Court found in favor of the assessee, overturning the Tribunal's decision and reinstating the CIT (Appeals) view. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the issues were resolved in favor of the assessee against the department.