9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2302 - AT - Income TaxGP rate @15% on the suppressed sales - additional income in the hands of assessee in the respective assessment years on account of admission of clandestine removal of goods without payment of Excise duty - Held that - The issue being identical to the issue before the Tribunal in set of Rolling Mill cases, we delete the additions made in the hands of assessee on account of suppressed production. However, following the parity of reasoning we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the addition on account of profits relating to the clandestine removal of goods without payment of Excise duty as admitted by the assessee before the Settlement Commission, CESTAT and / or Commissioner (Appeals) of Excise in the respective assessment years after verification, by applying GP rate of 4% or actual GP rate declared by the assessee, whichever is higher, if so declared by the respective assessee. The assessee has furnished the details of show cause notices issued by the Central Excise Authorities and the quantity involved of clandestine removal of goods and suppression of production in the respective years and also the final result / status of the petitions moved by the assessee either before the Settlement Commission / CESTAT or Commissioner (Appeals) of Excise. The said tabulated details are appended as Annexure to this order. We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of assessee in this regard and include the profit on the suppressed production @ 4% or actual GP rate declared by the assessee, whichever is higher. The assessee is directed to file the requisite details of proceedings before the Excise authorities, before the Assessing Officer in order to compute the additional income in the hands of assessee in the respective years. The directors of the assessee company and their family members had offered additional income of ₹ 14 crores, which has been declared in the respective returns of income and has been assessed in the hands of respective individuals. The major portion of income was declared in assessment year 2010-11 amounting of ₹ 12 crores and the balance of ₹ 2.80 crores was declared in assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. No benefit of telescoping has been allowed by the CIT(A) in respect of said declaration in the hands of assessee and no ground of appeal has been raised against the said denial by the CIT(A). In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue for estimation of GP @ 15% as the basis for applying GP has been deleted by the Tribunal in group of furnace cases decided earlier. Further, there is no merit in any addition on account of investment for the alleged production under section 69C of the Act. We allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee with the direction to the Assessing Officer to compute the additional income in the hands of assessee in the respective assessment years on account of admission of clandestine removal of goods without payment of Excise duty by the assessee before the Settlement Commission, Commissioner (Appeals) of Excise and CESTAT. No other addition is warranted in the hands of assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged suppression of sales. 2. Basis of suppression of sales on the order of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (CCE). 3. Use of electricity consumption data for production estimation. 4. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act. 5. Addition on account of Gross Profit (GP) on suppressed sales. 6. Addition on account of undisclosed investment under Section 69C. 7. Legal validity of assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A. 8. Telescoping of income offered in individual capacity against the company. 9. Basis of addition on show cause notices by DGCEI. 10. Application of GP rate by the CIT(A) and Revenue's challenge. Detailed Analysis: Alleged Suppression of Sales: The assessee argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the alleged suppression of sales amounting to Rs. 3,89,11,352/- based on the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, and the findings of the Directorate General of Central Excise and Customs (DGCEI). The CIT(A) upheld the suppression of sales based on electricity consumption data and production estimates derived from an article by Dr. N.K. Batra, which the assessee contended was based on presumption and lacked evidence of raw material purchases or out-of-book sales. Basis of Suppression of Sales: The CIT(A) confirmed the suppression of sales primarily based on the CCE's order, which relied on electricity consumption vis-a-vis production. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that electricity was a major cost input and used it as a parameter for determining production. The AO rejected the books of account under Section 145(1) of the Act and estimated production based on data from the Central Excise Commissioner (CEC), Aurangabad. Use of Electricity Consumption Data: The AO and CIT(A) used electricity consumption data as a basis for estimating production. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's rejection of the books of account and confirmed the suppression of production based on monthly variations in electricity consumption. This approach was challenged by the assessee, who argued that the reliance on electricity consumption was presumptive and not supported by concrete evidence. Rejection of Books of Accounts: The CIT(A) upheld the AO's rejection of the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Act, citing the clandestine removal of goods and unaccounted purchases and sales. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to furnish evidence to justify the variance in electricity consumption and relied on the CEC's data to estimate suppressed production and sales. Addition on Account of Gross Profit: The CIT(A) estimated the GP on suppressed production sold at 4%, which was almost double the GP rate applied in a similar case (SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd.). The CIT(A) directed that the actual GP rate be adopted where it was more than 4%. The Revenue challenged this estimation, arguing that the GP rate should be 35% as admitted by the director in a statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act. Addition on Account of Undisclosed Investment: The CIT(A) upheld an addition of Rs. 3,74,147/- under Section 69C of the Act for undisclosed investment in respect of undisclosed turnover. This addition was based on the estimation of funds required for producing and selling goods outside the books of account. Legal Validity of Assessment: The CIT(A) upheld the assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, rejecting the assessee's contention that no incriminating material was found during the search. The CIT(A) noted that the declaration of additional income during the search and the findings of the DGCEI justified the assessment under Section 153A. Telescoping of Income: The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's plea for telescoping the income offered in individual capacity against the income taxed in the hands of the assessee company. The CIT(A) noted that the additional income was declared by individuals and not by the assessee company. Basis of Addition on Show Cause Notices: The CIT(A) confirmed additions based on four show cause notices issued by the DGCEI, two of which were cancelled by the CESTAT, one by the Commissioner of Appeals (Excise), and one was under consideration by the Settlement Commission. Application of GP Rate: The Revenue's appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s application of a 4% GP rate on suppressed sales, arguing for a higher GP rate of 35% based on the director's admission. The Tribunal, however, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the GP rate should be applied reasonably and based on actual figures where available. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that no addition could be made solely based on electricity consumption data and theoretical reports. It upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of GP on suppressed sales at 4% and directed the AO to verify and include additional income on account of clandestine removal of goods as admitted before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for a higher GP rate and confirmed the deletion of additions based on erratic electricity consumption.
|
