2014 (10) TMI 572 - HC - Income Tax

Estimation of GP @ 2% of average of subsequent three years - Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the net profit should be estimated at 2% of the turnover, as against computation of undisclosed income by the AO based on the deposits discovered in search in undisclosed bank accounts in respect of suppressed sales Held that - The Tribunal was rightly of the view that when the FAA is relying on comparable cases, first there should be factual foundation showing the total turnover of that business and then the profit margin - there is no material to show as to what is the total turnover of M/s. SRV and Sons and therefore, the Tribunal was not prepared to accept the basis - it took note of the orders passed in the case of the assessee for the AY 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - when the total turnover was much more than the turnover for the AY 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, 2% was held to be the gross profit - 2% gross profit has to be taken for the relevant AYs during the block period - Even though the higher margin of turnover is shown for the subsequent years and the very same AO has recorded the finding of 2% profit margin for the period earlier to that where the total turnover is less, the Tribunal was justified in taking the gross profit at 2% - the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over estimation of gross profit for undisclosed income.
2. Assessment of undisclosed income in the case of two assessees.
3. Discrepancy in the profit margins considered by different authorities.
4. Appeal against the Tribunal's decision to estimate gross profit at 2%.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's order estimating gross profit at 2% for undisclosed income. The assessees, an individual and a partnership firm, were involved in the sale of Copra and Coconuts. The Assessing Authority assessed undisclosed income in the hands of the individual and the firm for specific assessment years. The assessee objected to considering the entire credits in unaccounted bank accounts as undisclosed income and proposed apportioning the gross profit ratio equally over four assessment years, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The First Appellate Authority estimated the gross profit at 4%, while the Tribunal later determined it at 2% based on subsequent assessment years' data.

2. The Tribunal's decision was based on the assessment orders for the years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06, where gross profits were shown to be around 2% of the turnover. The Tribunal found the approach justifiable, considering the turnover and profit margins for these years compared to the earlier period. The Tribunal declined to accept the 4% gross profit margin adopted by the Commissioner of Income Tax and directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the addition based on a 2% gross profit estimation.

3. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's reduction from 4% to 2% without justification was unwarranted. However, the Tribunal's decision was supported by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal's analysis was based on the turnover and profit margins of subsequent years, where 2% was found to be a reasonable estimate for the relevant assessment years during the block period. The Tribunal's decision was deemed just and proper, considering the turnover and profit margin trends.

4. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's judgment and answered the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed based on the Tribunal's justified estimation of gross profit at 2% for the undisclosed income. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the gross profit margin of 2% was appropriate for the relevant assessment years during the block period.