2013 (10) TMI 209 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A pursuant to search - estimation of rate of net profit - Whether the rate of profit shown in return is reasonable or not - Selection of Comparables for the computation of rate of profit Held that - Comparison with other cases must taken into account the total turnover, the favourable or unfavourable conditions of the assessee vis- -vis comparable cases, etc - There are two related parties carrying an identical business of running of bakery viz. Sri Abdul Gadhafi and Smt. Thasleena P.P. in whose cases my predecessor has held that net profit rate of 11% and 5% respectively - The net profit rates shown by the appellant in the revised returns are considered as unfair and unreasonable - The reasonable and justifiable net profit rate that is required to be adopted in the appellant s case is determined at 8.00% for the reason that the peak net profit rate worked out on the basis of appellant s revised income for assessment year 2006-07 and 07-08 are above 7% - Net profit rate @ 8% should be adopted on the estimated turnover as upheld in this proceedings for the impugned assessment years Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Net profit determination by the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09.
2. Estimation of annual turnover and gross profit rate by the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Duplication of turnover between M/s M.R.A. Bakery and M/s M.R.A. Ayurvedic Products.
4. Adoption of net profit rate by the CIT(A) instead of gross profit rate.
5. Comparison with other similar cases for determining a fair net profit rate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Net Profit Determination by CIT(A):
The assessee was aggrieved by the net profit determined by the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09. The CIT(A) decided that the net profit rate addition would be the correct course. The CIT(A) determined the net profit rate at 8% after considering the net profit rates declared by the assessee in the revised returns and the rates estimated by the Department in other comparable cases.

2. Estimation of Annual Turnover and Gross Profit Rate by AO:
The AO estimated the annual turnover based on the sworn statement given by the assessee during the search operation. The AO determined the sales turnover of M/s M.R.A. Bakery at Rs.1,23,00,000/- and M/s M.R.A. Ayurvedic Products at Rs.1,20,00,000/-. For preceding years, the turnover was reduced by 10% each year, and for the succeeding year 2008-09, it was enhanced by 10%. The AO adopted the gross profit rate disclosed by the assessee in his books of accounts and applied it to the estimated turnover, adding the difference to the total income returned by the assessee.

3. Duplication of Turnover:
The assessee contended that the turnover of M/s M.R.A. Bakery included the turnover from products supplied by M/s M.R.A. Ayurvedic Products, leading to duplication. The CIT(A) accepted this claim and reduced the turnover in respect of M/s M.R.A. Ayurvedic Products but sustained the turnover estimated by the AO for M/s M.R.A. Bakery.

4. Adoption of Net Profit Rate by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) held that the AO was not right in adopting the gross profit rate disclosed in the books of accounts since the books were not properly maintained. The CIT(A) decided to estimate the net profit instead, considering the unreliable nature of the books of accounts and the improper accounting of expenditures by the assessee.

5. Comparison with Other Similar Cases:
The CIT(A) compared the net profit rates with those in other related cases, such as Sri Abdul Gadhafi and Smt. Thasleena P.P., and determined that an 8% net profit rate was reasonable. The CIT(A) also considered the net profit rates declared by the assessee in the revised returns and the average net profit rate before the search period, which was above 7%.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with the determination of the net profit rate at 8%. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order for all the years in question. The revenue did not file appeals challenging the CIT(A)'s order, and the Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) had already accounted for the concerns raised by the assessee regarding M/s M.R.A. Ayurvedic Products.