2012 (5) TMI 394 - HC - Income Tax

Trading additions - rejection of books of accounts - held that - The first two reason recorded by the Assessing Officer by themselves do not justify rejection of the books of accounts. Low gross or net profit may be a ground or reason to conduct a detailed and thorough investigation and verification, but on stand alone basis cannot be a ground for rejecting the books. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding assessment year 2006-07.
- Question of law: Whether the Tribunal erred in deleting the trading addition of Rs.42,88,000/- made by the AO after rejecting the books of accounts?

Analysis:
1. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts citing reasons such as low declared profit, undisclosed project-wise accounts, improper disclosure of closing stock, and unaccounted outstanding balances. However, low profit alone is insufficient grounds for rejecting books as profit margins can vary due to market conditions. The system of accounting cannot be rejected solely based on low profits without other defects justifying it. The Tribunal analyzed the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to determine the correctness of rejecting the books of accounts.

2. Regarding the first reason for rejection, the assessee explained that project-wise details were maintained centrally, and there was no legal requirement for separate records. The CIT(Appeals) found no merit in the contention that books were not produced, as the Assessing Officer's observations were general and not specific about non-production. The Tribunal affirmed the findings, stating that the Revenue failed to challenge the factual basis of the decision.

3. The second issue concerned the failure to show closing stock for six out of nine projects. The CIT(Appeals) accepted the assessee's explanation that final payments were received for completed projects, and no stock was present at other sites. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, as the Assessing Officer did not address the assessee's stand in the assessment order.

4. The last aspect involved unconfirmed balances of certain parties. The Assessing Officer noted discrepancies in balances of Vardhaman Traders and Dhanishta Builders. The CIT(Appeals) mentioned that confirmations were furnished for seven parties, including details and particulars. The Tribunal upheld the decision to dismiss the appeal, as the factual position supported the assessee's case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal answered the question of law in favor of the assessee, directing the appellant-Revenue to pay costs. The judgment highlights the importance of justifying the rejection of books of accounts based on substantial grounds beyond low profits and emphasizes the need for specific, factual considerations in tax assessments.