2021 (2) TMI 276 - AT - Income Tax

Trading Addition - non consideration of book results - GP estimation - Addition on account of Gross Profit as applied Gross Profit Ratio 8.5% against Assessee firm recorded 7.99% Gross Profit Ratio - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2019 (9) TMI 1489 - ITAT JAIPUR where the assessee company had declared better trading results as compared to previous year and such result provides a reasonable basis to hold that there should not be any addition in the hands of the assessee company. It is also noted that the AO had not detected any defect in the books of the assessee and AO has not invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act for rejecting the books of account of the assessee but made the lumsum/ adhoc addition on account of labour expenses on estimation basis without finding any defects in the books of account and vouchers of the assessee. Hence, relying upon the decision of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Goodwill Impex Ltd vs DCIT 2019 (3) TMI 1456 - ITAT JAIPUR we are of the view that once the assessee company had declared better trading results as compared to previous year, such results provide a reasonable basis to hold that there should not be any addition in the hands of the assessee company. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the addition of ?21,99,341 on account of Gross Profit by applying a higher Gross Profit Ratio.
2. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Application of Section 144 for best judgment assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustaining the Addition of ?21,99,341 on Account of Gross Profit:
The primary issue in this appeal is the addition of ?21,99,341 to the assessee's income by applying a Gross Profit (GP) ratio of 8.5% instead of the 7.99% declared by the assessee. The assessee argued that their books of accounts, which were audited and maintained as per accounting principles, showed better results compared to the previous year. The CIT (A) partially allowed relief by reducing the NP rate applied by the AO from 9% to 8.5%, but the assessee contended that even this was without any basis. The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for the previous year, such an addition was deleted, considering the better trading results and the absence of any defects in the books of accounts.

2. Rejection of Books of Accounts under Section 145(3):
The AO rejected the assessee's books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to the alleged failure to provide details and confirmations of sundry creditors for labour and material amounting to ?14,56,79,014. The assessee maintained that these creditors were for local labour and materials, typically below ?1 lakh, and that proper books of accounts were maintained. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not find any defects in the books of accounts or the vouchers provided by the assessee. The rejection of books was deemed unjustified as the assessee had shown better trading results compared to previous years.

3. Application of Section 144 for Best Judgment Assessment:
The AO applied Section 144, determining the income based on a 9% NP rate, arguing that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of liabilities. The assessee contended that they complied with all terms of notices issued under Sections 142(2A) and 143(2), making the application of Section 144 inappropriate. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's trading results were better than previous years, and no defects were found in the books of accounts. Thus, the application of Section 144 was considered illegal and unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's books of accounts were properly maintained and audited, showing better trading results compared to previous years. The rejection of books under Section 145(3) and the application of Section 144 were deemed unjustified. Following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for the previous year, the Tribunal deleted the addition of ?21,99,341, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.

← Previous Next →