9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 584 - AT - Income TaxRejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) - GP estimation - HELD THAT - As per CIT while examining gross margins, the AO should not only compare the past margins of the assessee but also the current year margins of other assessee engaged in similar business. This would give an insight into the actual profit margins during the year under reference and would be a correct guide for estimation of profits. He held that no business can have a minimum threshold G.P every year just to satisfy the whims of the Assessing Officer and the working of the A.O. is more theoretical and mathematical than cogent or real. He accordingly didn t agree with the estimated increase in G.P. rate to 3.03% done by the AO as against 2.57% shown by the assessee. We see no justifiable reasons in interfering with the said findings of the ld CIT(A). We upheld the order of the ld CIT(A) and ground of appeal so taken by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?1,88,80,279 out of total addition of ?2,28,55,077 made by the AO after rejecting the books of accounts under section 145(3). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the deletion of ?1,88,80,279 out of the total addition of ?2,28,55,077 by the CIT(A) was justified after the AO rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3). Facts of the Case: The assessee is engaged in processing oil seeds and refining crude oil for edible use. The AO noted a decline in the Gross Profit (GP) rate from 3.16% in the previous year to 2.57% in the current year. The AO rejected the books of accounts due to the absence of a quality-wise stock register and unverifiable expenses. Consequently, the AO estimated the income by applying an average GP rate of 3.03%, leading to an addition of ?2,28,55,077. The CIT(A) upheld the rejection of books but reduced the addition to ?39,74,797 by applying a GP rate of 2.65%. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that after rejecting the books under section 145(3), the AO is required to estimate the income based on a reasonable basis, often guided by the past GP history. The Revenue cited the case of CIT vs. Gupta KN Constructions, which supports using past GP rates for estimation. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) reduced the GP rate without a valid basis. Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that mere rejection of books does not necessitate an addition to the income. The decline in GP was due to market conditions, fluctuations in raw material prices, and increased costs. The assessee cited CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog, highlighting that an honest estimation considering surrounding circumstances is required. The assessee provided a detailed explanation for the reduced GP, including a decrease in sales realization and additional costs incurred. Tribunal's Observations: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) upheld the rejection of books but found the AO's estimation of GP rate at 3.03% unreasonable. The CIT(A) considered discrepancies in the accounts and market conditions, applying a GP rate of 2.65%. The Tribunal emphasized that best judgment assessment should consider material on record and be based on reasonable estimates. The Tribunal highlighted that past GP rates should only be used if business conditions remain similar, which was not the case here due to market recession and increased costs. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the AO's estimation was not justified given the changed business conditions and additional costs incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the deletion of ?1,88,80,279. Final Judgment: The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open Court on 14/07/2021.
|
