2016 (5) TMI 196 - HC - Income Tax

Estimation of Net profit - Tribunal had estimated the rate of profit at 9% - Held that - It is true that the discretion to determine a net profit rate must necessarily be exercised on the basis of relevant factors. In the present case, it has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee did not produce any supporting vouchers for expenses exceeding ₹ 25,000/-. It did not file copies of the bank accounts of the partners and thus the Assessing Officer could not have verified the various payments received by the appellant from bankers or payments taken directly from the customers by the partners. The assessee did not file the details of purchases in the format given by the Assessing Officer. Regarding sundry debtors, no confirmation was filed and even in the balance sheet, the names of the sundry debtors to the extent of ₹ 1,66,00,000/- were not shown. No details of opening and closing stock were filed. In view of these facts, the Assessing officer could not verify various details and in this way he could not rely upon the book version of the assessee. The assessee even did not file return unless the same was detected during the search. Keeping all the factors in view, the Assessing Officer adopted net rate of 10% on the gross receipts on estimate basis which was reduced by the Tribunal to 9% to meet the ends of justice The estimation of gross profit rate at 9% could not be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable warranting interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issues Involved:

1. Violation of principles of natural justice by the Tribunal.
2. Justification of net profit rate application on an estimated basis without specific rejection of books of account by the AO.
3. Sufficiency of reasons for the AO not to rely on the books and documents produced by the appellant.
4. Justification of applying a net profit rate of 9% on total gross receipts without comparable cases.
5. Perverse finding of the Tribunal regarding the nature of the appellant's business.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order violated the principles of natural justice as it did not address all contentions raised during the hearing and written submissions. The court did not find merit in this argument. The Tribunal had considered the overall facts and circumstances and estimated the profit rate at 9%.

Issue 2: Justification of Net Profit Rate Application

The appellant argued that the Tribunal upheld the application of a net profit rate on an estimated basis without the AO specifically rejecting the books of account. The court noted that the Tribunal observed the appellant did not produce supporting vouchers for expenses exceeding Rs. 25,000, failed to file copies of the bank accounts of partners, and did not provide details of purchases in the required format. The Tribunal concluded that the AO could not verify various details, implying a de facto rejection of the books.

Issue 3: Sufficiency of Reasons for AO's Non-Reliance on Books

The Tribunal found that the AO had sufficient reasons not to rely on the appellant's books and documents. The appellant did not file returns until detected during a search, did not produce supporting vouchers for significant expenses, and failed to provide confirmations for sundry creditors and debtors. These deficiencies justified the AO's decision to apply an estimated net profit rate.

Issue 4: Justification of Applying a 9% Net Profit Rate

The appellant challenged the 9% net profit rate applied by the Tribunal, arguing it was without basis or comparable cases. The Tribunal justified the 9% rate by noting that the appellant was engaged in the construction of private houses, which generally involves higher profit margins than mass construction contracts. The Tribunal considered the appellant's failure to file necessary details and the presence of significant sundry creditors without confirmation.

Issue 5: Perverse Finding on Nature of Business

The appellant claimed the Tribunal's finding that the appellant was engaged in constructing residential buildings was perverse, as the appellant primarily constructed industrial buildings. The Tribunal's decision to apply a 9% net profit rate was based on the overall facts and circumstances, including the nature of the appellant's business and the lack of necessary documentation.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no error in the estimation of the gross profit rate at 9%. The Tribunal's view was deemed plausible, and the appeal was dismissed. The cited judgments did not aid the appellant as they were based on different fact situations. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose.

← Previous Next →