2017 (6) TMI 1040 - AT - Income Tax

Determination of Net profit rate of 8% on gross contract receipt - Held that - AO has neither pointed out any specific deficiency, in the purchase invoices or the expense invoices, nor discussed any comparable case on identical facts, to form the basis for application of a particular net profit rate on gross total receipts, in the case of the assessee. On perusal of the comparative Net Profit Chart of the assesses s past history on profit rate, as above, it is evident that the Net Profit Rate before interest paid to partners capital is reasonably declared at 3.54% as against 3.3 % and 3.8% of the previous years. However, after interest paid to partners capital, it is reduced to below 1% as compared to 1.18% and 1.6% from the earlier assessment years as above. The profit rate applied by Authorities below at 8% is too much on the higher side and is unreasonable. Following the order in the case of M/s Om construction Company 2014 (5) TMI 1026 - ITAT AGRA on identical facts, we find it just, fair and reasonable to estimate the income of the assessee at the Net Profit rate of 4% of the gross total receipts before salary and interest to the partners of the firm, for the year under appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee partly. Addition on account of current liabilities and provisions, being creditors for goods - Held that - As the books of account of the assessee are rejected by the assessing Authority in which case the same books of account could not be relied on for an addition on account of trade creditors. See CIT vs. Bahubali Neminath Muttin 2017 (1) TMI 820 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of confirming the net profit rate of 8% on gross contract receipt.
2. Confirmation of disallowance of ?1,58,154/- to the three working partners (withdrawn by the assessee).
3. Addition of ?47,46,617/- on account of current liabilities and provisions being creditors for goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Confirming the Net Profit Rate of 8% on Gross Contract Receipt:

The assessee contended that the CIT (Appeals) was unjustified in confirming the net profit rate of 8% on gross contract receipt without considering the past history and comparable cases. During the assessment proceedings, the AO rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) due to the non-production of vouchers for purchases and expenses. The AO estimated the income by applying an 8% net profit rate on the gross total receipts and added ?47,46,617/- towards the income, representing the accretion in sundry creditors due to non-furnishing of confirmation.

The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision, agreeing with the rejection of books and the application of the 8% net profit rate. The assessee's AR argued that the authorities ignored the procedure under Section 145(3) read with Section 144, emphasizing that the AO should have completed the assessment based on material gathered, which was not done. The AR cited several judicial precedents, including decisions from the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Allahabad, Karnataka, and Calcutta, and the ITAT, Agra Bench, asserting that the assessee's past history should be considered for estimating income.

The AR presented a comparative Net Profit Chart showing consistency in the trading results, suggesting that the net profit rate applied by the authorities was excessively high. The AR proposed that the assessee's income should be estimated based on past history, showing net profit rates before interest and salary to partners ranging from 3% to 3.8%.

The tribunal found that the AO did not provide specific deficiencies in purchase or expense invoices or discuss any comparable case to justify the 8% net profit rate. Considering the assessee's past history and judicial precedents, the tribunal deemed the 8% rate unreasonable. Following the ITAT, Agra Bench's decision in a similar case, the tribunal found it reasonable to estimate the income at a 4% net profit rate before salary and interest to partners. Thus, the assessee received a relief of 4%, and the first ground of appeal was partly allowed.

2. Confirmation of Disallowance of ?1,58,154/- to the Three Working Partners:

This ground was not pressed and considered withdrawn by the assessee.

3. Addition of ?47,46,617/- on Account of Current Liabilities and Provisions Being Creditors for Goods:

The AO added ?47,46,617/- as current liabilities and provisions, representing creditors for goods. The CIT (A) upheld the addition, noting the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of the liabilities. The assessee's AR argued that once the books of account are rejected, the AO cannot selectively use entries from the same rejected books for making additions. The AR cited several judicial precedents, including decisions from the High Courts of Punjab & Haryana, Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, and the ITAT, Agra Bench, supporting the contention that no further addition should be made from rejected books.

The tribunal noted that the AO had rejected the books and estimated the profit under Section 145(3). The AR contended that the AO should have completed the assessment as per Section 144, gathering specific evidence, which was not done. The tribunal found that once books are rejected, they cannot be relied upon for making additions. The tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in 'CIT vs. Agrawal Engineering Co.' and the Karnataka High Court's decision in 'CIT vs. Bahubali Neminath Muttin,' which supported the assessee's position.

Following these precedents, the tribunal held that the CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition on account of accretion to trade creditors. Therefore, the third ground of appeal was accepted.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed, with the tribunal reducing the net profit rate to 4% and deleting the addition of ?47,46,617/- on account of current liabilities and provisions. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 30/03/2017.

← Previous Next →