2020 (6) TMI 529 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) - GP estimation - CIT(A) estimated the income @ 11% by considering the original financial statements and percentage of GP declared by the assessee - HELD THAT - Assessee is a milk supplier and earns only commission income based on the sales achieved by the assessee. As far as business models are concerned, there is no change from earlier assessment year to this assessment year and we notice that assessee has declared 5.93% of GP in AY 2011-12 and 6.3% in AY 2012-13. Assessee can be assessed to tax only on real income and not on any estimation or surmises. Therefore, we are of the view that assessee has declared 11.08% as GP without substantiating the result declared by it, the reasons best known to him. Assessee should be charged to tax @ 7% (considering the gross profit declared by the assessee in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, where there is 6% increase in GP and we expect that assessee must have increased its GP by 10%.) Accordingly, we direct the AO to estimate the income @ 7%. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Confirmation of gross profit margin estimation at 11% by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
3. Assessment of the real income of the assessee based on commission income earned from milk sales.

Analysis:

1. Rejection of books of account under section 145(3):
The case involved the rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO observed discrepancies in the declared sales, purchases, and profits of the assessee, a milk supplier. The AO noted that the assessee initially declared a gross profit of 11.08% but later revised it to 4.15% based on commission income earned. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee and estimated the gross profit at 15%. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the rejection of book results but reduced the estimated gross profit to 11%.

2. Confirmation of gross profit margin estimation at 11%:
The assessee appealed against the Commissioner's decision to confirm the estimation of gross profit at 11%. During the appeal, the assessee argued that the gross profit estimation was high and not in line with prevailing rates in the milk distribution business. The assessee presented a detailed chart of commission earnings from milk producers, ranging from 1.40% to 0.90%, with an average of 4.3%. The assessee's previous years' gross profit margins were 5.93% and 6.3%. The Tribunal considered the business model consistency and past profit margins, ultimately directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 7%, considering the historical profit margins and an expected increase of 10%.

3. Assessment of real income based on commission earnings:
The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee, a milk supplier, earned income solely through commissions on milk sales. It highlighted the importance of assessing the real income rather than relying on estimations. The Tribunal noted the lack of change in the business model from previous assessment years and the consistency in gross profit margins. Based on these factors, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax at 7%, considering the historical profit margins and an expected increase.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 7% based on the commission income earned from milk sales, historical profit margins, and an expected increase in profits.