9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 211 - HC - Income TaxGP estimation - no material defects in the books of accounts - Held that - It is not in dispute that the assessee is carrying on his business with his own fleet as well as the hired fleet of trucks / tankers and for that, the profits have been correctly shown under the different heads. In view of the turnover, the assessee would surely not prefer to go for the hired fleet. Considering the ratio laid down in the decisions in the cases of Commissioner of Income-tax-XII v. Smt. Poonam Rani (2010 (5) TMI 57 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) and Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Symphony Comfort System Ltd. (2013 (10) TMI 258 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) and in the facts of the present case, we are of the view that once it is established that there is no defect in the books of accounts, it will not be appropriate for us to judge or presume the estimated profit for trucks / tankers which were operated on a hired basis. The books of accounts as furnished by the assessee are required to be accepted and therefore, the question raised in this Appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
Issues:
Challenge to judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding estimation of gross profits in transport business. Detailed Analysis: 1. Estimation of Gross Profits: The appellant challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which reversed the findings of CIT (Appeals) and restored the order of the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 1997-98. The substantial question of law framed by the Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in law to estimate and adjust gross profits even when there were no material defects in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant. The appellant, engaged in transport contract business, had contracts for transportation of materials using both owned and hired trucks/tankers. The Tribunal had adopted a gross profit rate of 8% instead of the 7.38% shown by the appellant, leading to a dispute over the estimation methodology. 2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in adopting a higher gross profit rate without specific defects found in the books of accounts. The appellant highlighted the Tribunal's deviation from the profit rate of the preceding year and argued for acceptance of the gross profit rate shown by the assessee. Citing precedents, the appellant emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous and not in line with established principles. 3. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, on the other hand, supported the Tribunal's view, asserting that the real facts were considered by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal. The respondent pointed to the profit estimation based on work given to a sister concern, suggesting a higher profit margin of at least 16% and potentially up to 40%. The respondent argued for the acceptance of the Tribunal's decision as just and appropriate, given the factual considerations. 4. Court's Decision: After hearing both parties and examining the case records, the Court emphasized that in the absence of defects in the books of accounts, the estimated profit for trucks/tankers operated on a hired basis should be based on the accounts furnished by the assessee. Relying on relevant case law, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that once the absence of defects in the accounts is established, it is not appropriate to presume or judge the estimated profit. Consequently, the Court answered the question raised in the appeal in favor of the assessee and against the Department. In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat upheld the appellant's challenge to the Tribunal's judgment, emphasizing the importance of accepting the accounts as presented in the absence of defects and rejecting arbitrary estimations of gross profits without proper basis.
|
