9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 791 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of income - Rejection of books of accounts - CIT(A) has sustained the addition @ 1.5% gross profits on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of past history - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has wrongly affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account of the assessee without assigning any reasons. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, in the past three years, the gross commission of the total receipts remained below 1% and the Ld. CIT(A) has determined the addition @ 1.5% and as per settled law when the books of account are rejected, the profit is determined on estimation basis and in determining the profit on estimation basis, the past history plays a vital role. As contended by the Ld. Counsel, the net profit rate of 1.5% sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is on higher side in view of the past history. Hence, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel that 1.5% profit rate estimated by the Ld. CIT(A) is on higher side. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee and modify the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restrict the net profit rate to 1% of the gross receipts, which is more than the percentage in the last 3 years. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the addition @ 1% of the gross receipts. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Issues:
1. Rejection of books of accounts by Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 2. Estimation of net profit rate by Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 3. Consideration of past history in determining net profit rate. 4. Appeal against the decision of CIT(A) by the assessee. Issue 1: Rejection of books of accounts The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, estimating net profit at 2% of gross receipts due to unaccounted receipts from Form 26AS. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition to 1.5% of gross receipts. The assessee contended that the rejection of books without specifying defects is unsustainable, citing a similar case where such rejection was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal acknowledged the past three years' gross commission remained below 1%, finding the 1.5% profit rate upheld by CIT(A) excessive. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the decision, limiting the net profit rate to 1% of gross receipts. Issue 2: Estimation of net profit rate The Assessing Officer estimated net profit at 2% of gross receipts, while CIT(A) upheld the addition at 1.5%. The assessee argued that the 1.5% rate was unreasonable, referencing past cases and the historical net profit ratio of less than 1% over three years. The Tribunal agreed that the 1.5% rate was high based on past history and reduced the net profit rate to 1% of gross receipts, aligning it with the previous years' percentages. This adjustment was made in the interest of justice, partially allowing the appeal by the assessee. Issue 3: Consideration of past history The Tribunal emphasized the significance of past history in determining the net profit rate on an estimation basis. Citing the past three years' gross commission percentages below 1%, the Tribunal found the 1.5% rate upheld by CIT(A) excessive. Relying on established legal principles, the Tribunal modified the decision, restricting the net profit rate to 1% of gross receipts, aligning it with historical trends and ensuring fairness in the assessment. Issue 4: Appeal against CIT(A) decision The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision, challenging the rejection of books of accounts and the 1.5% net profit rate estimation. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both parties and past history, found merit in the assessee's contentions. Consequently, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the net profit rate to 1% of gross receipts, reflecting historical trends and ensuring a fair assessment. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, providing relief in the assessment for the relevant year. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.
|
