2025 (4) TMI 1560 - AT - Income Tax

Addition by applying G.P. Rate on unaccounted sales - CIT(A) restricting the addition by applying G.P. Rate - some software were found during the search and Ratnakala Group wherein there were some unaccounted transactions which were cash transactions - HELD THAT - First of all it is now matter of record that out of these unaccounted sales which has been added by the ld. AO substantial part was accounted in the books of the assessee which has been verified and finding of fact has been given by CIT (A). Thus entire sales could not have been added as unaccounted sales. Even if it is admitted that there are certain unaccounted sales of diamonds then there were also purchases of diamond which has been sold in cash to Ratnakala Group. In such a scenario the entire sales could not have been added because purchases have not been doubted at all by the ld. AO. Without purchases sales cannot be affected. Assessee s total turnover/sale to other parties is in hundreds of crores and sale to this party is very less and out of which most of the sales has been accounted for. Accordingly in such a situation only the gross profit rate on alleged unaccounted sales can be applied. Here in this case most of the sales made to the same party have been accounted in the books on which assessee had disclosed certain GP rate which has not been disputed. In such a scenario applying same GP rate is reasonable which can be applied on the sales which are alleged to be unaccounted. Accordingly the observation and the finding of the CIT (A) for applying GP rate of such sales is upheld. Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this matter revolve around the correctness and validity of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged unaccounted cash sales by the assessee to the Ratnakala Group, following a search and seizure operation. Specifically, the issues include:

1. Whether the AO was justified in reopening the assessments based on the material found during the search and the statements recorded from third parties.

2. Whether the entire sales turnover claimed as unaccounted cash sales by the AO can be added to the income of the assessee, or only the profit element should be subjected to taxation.

3. The evidentiary value and reliability of electronic data (software ledgers) and statements of third-party employees/directors in establishing unaccounted sales.

4. Whether the application of the gross profit (GP) rate on the alleged unaccounted sales by the CIT(A) was appropriate and justified.

5. The validity of the cross-objections filed by the assessee challenging the additions sustained by the CIT(A).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Justification for Reopening of Assessment

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reopening of assessments under section 147 requires that the AO must have "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, supported by tangible material. Borrowed satisfaction without independent verification is generally impermissible.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted the contention of the assessee that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction from the search conducted on the Ratnakala Group without independent inquiry or verification by the AO. The AO relied on data and statements from third parties rather than direct incriminating evidence against the assessee.

Application of Law to Facts: Despite these contentions, the Tribunal found that the material seized from the Ratnakala Group, including software data and statements, formed a sufficient basis for reopening. The Tribunal did not find merit in the argument that the AO's reliance on third-party data was improper, given the nature of the search and the corroborative evidence.

Conclusion: The reopening was held to be valid as it was supported by tangible material found during the search, and the AO was justified in initiating reassessment proceedings.

2. Extent of Addition: Entire Sales vs. Profit Element

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: It is a well-established principle in income tax jurisprudence that where unaccounted sales are alleged, and purchases are not doubted, only the profit margin on such sales can be added to the income. The entire sales turnover cannot be taxed as income because it includes the cost of purchases.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO added the entire sales turnover alleged to be unaccounted cash sales to the income of the assessee. However, the CIT(A) held that since the purchases were not doubted and a substantial part of the sales was already recorded in the books, only the profit element on the unaccounted portion should be added. The CIT(A) relied on precedents from higher courts supporting this principle.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the ledger accounts and software data showed that a significant portion of sales to the Ratnakala Group was accounted for. The AO did not dispute the purchases made by the assessee, which implied that the cost of goods sold was genuine. Therefore, taxing the entire sales turnover would be unjustified.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s approach of applying the gross profit rate declared by the assessee to the unaccounted sales portion to compute the addition.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued for addition of the entire sales, relying on the software data and statements. The assessee denied any unaccounted cash sales and challenged the additions. The Tribunal sided with the CIT(A), emphasizing the principle that only profit margin is taxable in such circumstances.

Conclusion: Only the gross profit element on the unaccounted sales was properly taxable, and the entire sales turnover could not be added as income.

3. Evidentiary Value of Software Data and Third-Party Statements

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Statements recorded during search and seizure operations and electronic data seized from third parties can be used as evidence, provided they are reliable and corroborated. However, the assessee is entitled to cross-examine the declarants to test the veracity of such statements.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee contended that the statements of the directors and employees of Ratnakala Exports Private Limited were general in nature, did not specifically implicate the assessee, and were retracted. The assessee also argued that no opportunity for cross-examination was given.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the ledger entries in the seized software were specific and detailed, mentioning the assessee by name, describing transactions with particulars such as description of goods, lot, rate, and broker name. The statements corroborated the ledger data. The Tribunal held that under the circumstances, cross-examination was not mandatory, and the circumstantial evidence was sufficient.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal accepted the AO's reliance on the software data and statements as valid evidence to support the addition.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention regarding the inadmissibility of the statements and data, emphasizing the corroborative nature of the evidence.

Conclusion: The software data and third-party statements were held to be reliable and admissible evidence for the purpose of making additions.

4. Appropriateness of Applying Gross Profit Rate on Unaccounted Sales

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The application of gross profit rate to unaccounted sales to compute taxable income is a recognized method, especially where the purchases are not disputed and a part of the sales is accounted for.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) applied the gross profit rate declared by the assessee on the unaccounted portion of sales after excluding the accounted sales. The Tribunal found this approach reasonable and consistent with judicial precedents.

Key Evidence and Findings: The year-wise summary showed the AO's addition based on entire alleged sales, while the CIT(A) considered accounted sales and applied the GP rate on the balance unaccounted sales, resulting in reduced additions.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s method as it balanced the evidence and avoided penalizing the assessee for the entire sales amount when only a part was unaccounted.

Conclusion: The application of the gross profit rate on unaccounted sales was appropriate and justified.

5. Validity of Cross Objections by the Assessee

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee challenged the residual additions sustained by the CIT(A) on various grounds, including lack of evidence and procedural lapses.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that there was definite material from the search indicating unaccounted purchases by the Ratnakala Group from the assessee, supporting the additions.

Conclusion: The cross objections were dismissed as the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings and reasoning.

Significant Holdings

"It is now matter of record that out of these unaccounted sales which has been added by the ld. AO, substantial part was accounted in the books of the assessee which has been verified and finding of fact has been given by the ld. CIT (A). Thus, entire sales could not have been added as unaccounted sales."

"Even if it is admitted that there are certain unaccounted sales of diamonds, then there were also purchases of diamond which has been sold in cash to Ratnakala Group. In such a scenario, the entire sales could not have been added, because purchases have not been doubted at all by the ld. AO."

"Accordingly, in such a situation only the gross profit rate on alleged unaccounted sales can be applied. Here in this case most of the sales made to the same party have been accounted in the books on which assessee had disclosed certain GP rate which has not been disputed. In such a scenario, applying same GP rate is reasonable which can be applied on the sales which are alleged to be unaccounted."

"The statements only corroborated to the ledger found in the various softwares. Thus, providing cross examination was not compulsorily under these circumstances and they were other circumstantial evidences."

"Accordingly, the observation and the finding of the ld. CIT (A) for applying GP rate of such sales is upheld."

The Tribunal's final determinations were that the reopening was valid; the entire sales turnover could not be added as income; only the gross profit on unaccounted sales was taxable; the software data and statements were admissible and reliable evidence; and the CIT(A)'s approach in restricting the addition by applying the GP rate was correct. Both the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross objections were dismissed.