2019 (5) TMI 1114 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - net profit estimation - AO pointed various defects in the books of accounts of the assessee - acceptance of CIT(A) order in earlier year - HELD THAT - Non-verification of creditor s ledger account and non-maintenance of stock register raise serious doubts on the amount of profit worked out on the basis of the books of accounts. AO in the assessment order has also pointed out that the assessee should have reported its revenue and profit from the projects following the percentile completion method. Assessee in his written submission has contested the issue of allowing statutory expenses like, depreciation etc. out of the 8% gross profit rate estimated by the Assessing Officer but not contested the issue of rejection of books of account. In view of uncontroverted defects in books of accounts, we don t find any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the rejection of books of accounts. Accordingly, we uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking section 145(3) and rejection of books of accounts of the assessee. Sustaining the net profit rate of 5% on works contract subject to depreciation and 3% rate on supply by CIT-A he has followed the finding of his predecessor in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13. Assessee has not brought on record any order of the Tribunal, where this net profit rate applied by the CIT(A) in assessment year 2012-13 has been disturbed. In absence of any contrary order of the higher appellate forum, the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-13 has become final. No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) for the year under consideration in following the own comparison of profit results of the assessee upheld by the learned CIT(A) for estimating the net profit from works contract as well as from supply contract. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Books of Accounts.
2. Application of Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Estimation of Net Profit Rate.
4. Allowance of Statutory Expenses.
5. Comparison with Previous Assessment Years and Judicial Pronouncements.
6. Determination of Income and Relief Claimed.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Books of Accounts:
The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of accounts of the assessee due to various deficiencies, including low net profit, unverifiable purchases, unverified labor charges, unreliable valuation of work in progress, and non-maintenance of stock register. The AO determined the income at the rate of 8% on the gross receipt from contract business and 3% on the supply receipt. The CIT(A) upheld the rejection of books but reduced the net profit rate from 8% to 5% for contract work and confirmed the 3% rate for supply receipts. The tribunal found no infirmity in the rejection of books due to uncontroverted defects and upheld the AO's action under section 145(3) of the Act.

2. Application of Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee contended that Section 44AD, which prescribes a presumptive taxation scheme, was wrongly applied as the assessee's case was audited under Section 44AB. The tribunal did not specifically address this contention but focused on the estimation of profit rates based on the defects in the books of accounts.

3. Estimation of Net Profit Rate:
The AO estimated the net profit rate at 8% for contract receipts and 3% for supply receipts. The CIT(A) reduced the net profit rate for contract receipts to 5% after allowing depreciation. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the CIT(A) followed the findings from the previous assessment year (2012-13), which had become final as it was not challenged further.

4. Allowance of Statutory Expenses:
The assessee argued that certain statutory expenses were not considered while estimating the net profit. These expenses included work contract tax, testing expenses, tender fees, bank charges, interest on borrowed capital, insurance, professional and legal fees, depreciation, and audit fees. The tribunal acknowledged these expenses but upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit after allowing depreciation.

5. Comparison with Previous Assessment Years and Judicial Pronouncements:
The assessee cited various judicial pronouncements to support their case for a lower net profit rate. However, the tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) had followed the findings from the previous assessment year (2012-13), and in the absence of any contrary order from a higher appellate forum, the CIT(A)'s decision for that year had become final. The tribunal found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit based on comparative profit results from earlier years.

6. Determination of Income and Relief Claimed:
The CIT(A) estimated the total income by applying a 5% net profit rate on contract receipts and a 3% rate on supply receipts, after allowing depreciation. The total income was calculated as ?1,43,05,501, resulting in an addition of ?92,78,280 to the income shown by the assessee. The tribunal upheld this estimation and dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the rejection of books of accounts, the estimation of net profit rates by the CIT(A), and the allowance of statutory expenses as determined by the CIT(A). The tribunal emphasized the consistency with the previous assessment year's findings and the absence of any higher appellate order contradicting the CIT(A)'s decision. The grounds of appeal were accordingly dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 15th February 2019.

← Previous Next →