2019 (6) TMI 1258 - AT - Income Tax

Income estimation - Extra profit by applying GP Rate at 6% on the basis of average gross profit of other entities engaged in the trade of wholesale liquor business - AO neither pointed out any defect in the books of accounts nor rejected u/s 145 (2) - HELD THAT - Addition to the book results of the assessee without rejecting the books of accounts. To reject the books of accounts the learned assessing officer must find out latent, patent, and glaring defects in the books of accounts. In the present case, the AO has not found any defect in the books of accounts. Merely on the basis of comparison of gross profit with other parties, he has made the addition to the gross profit of the assessee. The learned departmental representative could not point out any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A ) and further failed to justify that without rejecting the books of accounts by finding out the latent, patent and glaring defects in the books of accounts whether the book results which are audited can be disturbed or not. On perusal of the order of the learned assessing officer, we did not find that the learned assessing officer has pointed out any defect in the books of accounts of the assessee. The learned AO also did not make any verification of various expenditure but has merely compared the gross profit of other entities without giving any benefit of difference in the business model, product dealt with, geographical area operated in et cetera. In view of this, we dismiss ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of extra profit based on gross profit rate
- Rejection of addition by CIT(A) and appeal by the revenue

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-30 for the Assessment Year 2011-12, challenging the deletion of an addition of INR 6,94,08,967 made on account of extra profit by applying a GP Rate at 6%.
2. The assessing officer noted that the assessee company showed a gross profit of 4.75%, while other entities in the wholesale liquor business had an average gross profit of over 6% for the same financial year. The AO questioned the difference and added the amount to the income of the assessee.
3. The assessee explained that the comparison was flawed as the entities dealt with different types of liquor and geographical areas, affecting the profit margins. The AO rejected the explanation and made the addition based on the comparison.
4. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the AO did not find any defects in the audited books of accounts. The comparison alone was not sufficient to make the addition without rejecting the books of accounts.
5. The CIT(A) highlighted that the AO did not call for details of discounts allowed or find any specific defects in the books of accounts to justify the addition. The AO's conclusion of sales suppression based on discounts was not substantiated.
6. The appellate tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that without pointing out defects in the books of accounts, changing the gross profit rate solely based on comparison was incorrect. The AO's failure to consider various factors affecting profit margins led to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis demonstrates the assessment process, the arguments presented by both parties, and the reasoning behind the decision to delete the addition of extra profit based on gross profit rate. The judgment underscores the importance of proper justification and evidence when making adjustments to income based on comparisons with other entities in the same business sector.