2016 (12) TMI 298 - AT - Income Tax

G.P. rate determination - Held that - As find some force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that if the huge addition as made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is considered, then the GP rate comes to 23.34% which is much more than the GP shown in the immediately preceding assessment year, i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 at 19.39%. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I am of the considered opinion that adoption of 21% of GP under the facts and circumstances of the case will meet the ends of justice. I hold and direct accordingly. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the GP and make suitable addition.- Decided partly in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of machining charges claimed by the assessee.
2. Disallowance of machining charges paid to parties other than sister concerns.
3. Disallowance on account of sale of scrap.
4. Disallowance of loading and unloading charges.
5. Disallowance of various expenses on an ad-hoc basis.
6. Legality of various additions made post rejection of books of account under section 145(3).
7. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Machining Charges Claimed by the Assessee:
The Assessing Officer (AO) noted a significant increase in machining charges claimed by the assessee, especially from sister concerns. The AO found discrepancies in the challan-cum-invoices and concluded that the assessee obtained bogus bills to suppress profits. Consequently, an addition of ?14,73,396/- was made for bogus machining charges. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, and the Tribunal found that the AO conducted an in-depth inquiry to justify the fall in the gross profit (GP) rate, thus supporting the disallowance.

2. Disallowance of Machining Charges Paid to Parties Other Than Sister Concerns:
The AO observed that machining charges paid during certain months exceeded the labour charges received, which appeared unreasonable. Therefore, an addition of ?2,84,707/- was made as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the AO's detailed investigation justified the disallowance.

3. Disallowance on Account of Sale of Scrap:
The AO found that the sale of scrap as a percentage of total turnover was lower compared to previous years. The AO made an addition of ?9,87,071/- as undisclosed income by adopting a ratio of 16% for scrap sales. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal acknowledged the AO's rationale but also considered the assessee's argument about the nature of job work and market conditions, leading to a partial allowance.

4. Disallowance of Loading and Unloading Charges:
The AO disallowed 50% of the loading and unloading expenses claimed (?2,90,887/-), citing unverifiable nature and lack of proper vouchers. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal found the AO's approach reasonable given the lack of verifiable evidence.

5. Disallowance of Various Expenses on an Ad-hoc Basis:
The AO disallowed 20% of various expenses (?3,54,651/-) due to self-made vouchers and unverifiable identity of recipients. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal recognized the AO's detailed scrutiny and partial justification for the disallowance.

6. Legality of Various Additions Made Post Rejection of Books of Account Under Section 145(3):
The assessee argued that once the books of account were rejected, the AO should have estimated the profit rather than making separate additions. The Tribunal partially agreed, noting that the GP rate post-additions was excessively high. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a GP rate of 21%, considering the average GP rates from previous years, and recompute the income accordingly.

7. Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The Tribunal noted that the levy of interest under these sections is mandatory and consequential, thus upholding the interest levied.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to recompute the GP at 21% and make suitable adjustments. The disallowances and additions were justified to an extent, but the overall GP rate needed adjustment to reflect a reasonable profit margin. The appeal was partly allowed, and the interest levied under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was upheld as mandatory and consequential.

← Previous Next →