2012 (12) TMI 604 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of gross profit - rejection of books of accounts - held that - Undisputedly, if the books are duly audited and if they are produced before the AO, the burden lies upon the Revenue to show that the books are defective or incomplete, in order to estimate reasonable income from turnover. However, in the instant case the assessee has not furnished relevant details and nowhere in the assessment order it is indicated that the assessee has furnished the books of account. - the contention of the assessee that no addition can be made in the event of not giving a specific finding with regard to the defect in the nature of books, deserves to be rejected. - Decided against the assessee. Rate of GP - Since itemised details were not furnished the learned CIT(A), based on the available material, accepted the GP sheet as prepared by the assessee and while arriving at the GP ratio at 22.22% the gross loss works out to Rs.2.09 crores. It is well settled that while estimating the income it is difficult to maintain exactitude. So long as the estimate is reasonable, based on the facts available on record, the appellate authorities should not interfere with the estimate made by the lower authorities. In the instant case no fresh material was furnished before us to indicate that even the CIT(A) has committed an error in restricting the GP ratio (loss) to 22.22%. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Estimation of gross profit and consequential addition made by the AO.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Estimation of Gross Profit
The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2004-05, where the assessee, a chemical manufacturer also engaged in offshore services, declared a loss. The AO, noting a significant increase in loss compared to the previous year, sought explanations from the assessee. Despite the assessee attributing the increased loss to operational issues, the AO found the explanations unsatisfactory and proceeded to estimate the gross profit. The CIT(A) observed that the AO lacked justification for rejecting the audited financial statements and making the addition. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance but upheld a portion of it. The assessee argued that the decline in business justified the decrease in gross profit ratio. However, the AO contended that the fall in gross profit was unacceptable. The Tribunal noted that the burden lies on the assessee to prove the claim made in the return, and in this case, the assessee failed to provide relevant details to support their position. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the addition made by the AO.

Issue 2: Consequential Addition
The AO made an addition to the gross profit, which was partially upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that even the reduced addition was excessive considering the circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish books of account or material to support their explanation. The CIT(A, based on available material, accepted the GP sheet prepared by the assessee and arrived at a GP ratio of 22.22%, resulting in a confirmed addition of Rs. 2.09 crores. The Tribunal emphasized that while estimating income, exactitude is difficult to maintain, and as long as the estimate is reasonable based on available facts, appellate authorities should not interfere. As no fresh material was presented to challenge the CIT(A)'s decision, the Tribunal upheld the order, confirming the addition and dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the CIT(A) regarding the estimation of gross profit and consequential addition made by the AO for the assessment year 2004-05, emphasizing the importance of providing complete and substantiated details to support claims during assessments.