9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1518 - AT - Income TaxN.P. determination - CIT-A restricting the net profit rate of 37. 97% on estimation basis - Held that - CIT(A) relied on the NABARD report, to restrict the net profit at 37. 93%, which according to us is not solely a determinative factor to work out net profit of the assessee company because it is only a report and not a comparable financial statement in assessee s similar business. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) has failed to bring on record, the outside comparable cases of the similar business, as the assessee is running. AO has not worked out a detailed report on the pasthistory and profitability of the assessee company and if the past profitability of the assessee company is not available, the Assessing Officer should bring on his record the comparable businesses where the similar business or activities were carried on, to adopt the net profit ratio. Therefore, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to remit the said issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to work out the assessee s past profitability history and also the comparable of the similar business entities working in similar products and similar environment. - Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
Cross-appeals by Assessee and Revenue against CIT(A) order for AY 2011-12 - Net profit rate estimation and rejection of audited accounts. Analysis: 1. The cross-appeals by the Assessee and Revenue were directed against the CIT(A) order for AY 2011-12, arising from the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues involved were clubbed and heard together due to the identical nature of the matters. 2. Assessee's Grievances: The Assessee contended that the CIT(A)'s order was arbitrary and unjustified, seeking to quash the assessment order and accept the returned income without estimation. The main grievance was the rejection of audited accounts and the subsequent estimation of income at 37.97% by the CIT(A). 3. Revenue's Grievances: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in applying a net profit rate of 37.97% without valid reasons, rejecting the AO's findings on various additions. They also contested the reduction of the addition amount by the CIT(A) without specifying defects in the AO's assessment. 4. Main Issues: The Assessee disputed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the net profit rate to 37.97%, advocating for the acceptance of the returned income. Conversely, the Revenue challenged the reduction of the net profit percentage from 45.74% to 37.97% by the CIT(A) without comparative cases. 5. Assessment Proceedings: The AO noted the absence of essential documents and complexity in accounts during assessment. Due to the lack of detailed records, the AO rejected the books of accounts and estimated net profit at 45.74%. The CIT(A) later reduced this to 37.93% based on a NABARD report on business profitability. 6. Appellate Arguments: The Assessee argued that the NABARD report was not a financial statement and should not be the sole basis for net profit rate determination. They emphasized the need for past profit history for a more accurate assessment. The Revenue reiterated the AO's stance without additional arguments. 7. ITAT Decision: The ITAT observed discrepancies in the assessment regarding inadmissible expenses and lack of supporting details. Both the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide research or comparable data for net profit estimation. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO for a reassessment based on past profitability and comparable business cases. 8. Conclusion: The appeals by both the Assessee and Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes. The ITAT decision highlighted the importance of accurate net profit estimation based on past financial data or comparable businesses, directing a reassessment by the AO for a more informed decision. Judgment Date: 25th April 2018.
|
