2021 (7) TMI 200 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - various information called for were not submitted by the assessee to AO - GP Estimation - HELD THAT - We note that there is a clearcut finding given by the ld. CIT(A) that assessee has fabricated books of accounts that is why the books of accounts have been rejected by the Assessing Officer under section 145(3) of the Act. The assessee did not submit required documents during the assessment stage. Assessee has manufactured and fabricated its books of account. The assessee has also fabricated the excise register.We have gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A), in the light of the above narrated facts, and noted that conclusion arrived at by ld CIT(A) does not require interference. Addition on account of alleged fictitious liability and addition u/s 41 - HELD THAT - As assessing officer has rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and gross profit of the assessee was estimated at average gross profit rate of last two years which comes to 22.64% (19.81 25.46%). Thus, we note that, once books of account are rejected then it cannot be said that it shall be good for one purpose and not for other and, therefore, no separate addition of alleged fictitious liability and additionunder section 41 of the Act can be made. Therefore, we delete both additions .

Issues:
1. Rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Assessment of gross profit based on rejected books of accounts.
3. Alleged understatement of lease rental income.
4. Addition on account of GP.
5. Addition on account of alleged fictitious liability.
6. Addition under section 41 of the Act.

Issue 1: Rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal filed by the assessee was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in relation to the assessment year 2004-05. The books of accounts of the assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer under section 145(3) of the Act due to discrepancies in the information submitted. The assessee had shown lease rental income as job work charges to avoid legal complications arising from tenancy. The Assessing Officer found the books unreliable and estimated the gross profit at an average rate of the last two years, resulting in an addition to the total income of the assessee.

Issue 2: Assessment of gross profit based on rejected books of accounts:
The Assessing Officer estimated the gross profit based on the rejected books of accounts, leading to an addition to the total income of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, upholding the rejection of books of accounts and sustaining an addition on the grounds of suppressed lease rental income. The Tribunal confirmed the rejection of books of accounts and the subsequent profit estimation, concluding that the assessee had fabricated the books of accounts, justifying the addition to the total income.

Issue 3: Alleged understatement of lease rental income:
The assessee had understated lease rental income, leading to a discrepancy in the reported income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed a clear suppression of income and sustained an addition to account for the understated amount. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for accurate reporting of income and rejecting the appeal on this issue.

Issue 4: Addition on account of GP:
The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of Gross Profit (GP) based on the rejected books of accounts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained this addition, considering the fabricated nature of the books of accounts. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, highlighting the importance of accurate financial reporting and upholding the addition on account of GP.

Issue 5: Addition on account of alleged fictitious liability:
The assessing officer had made an addition on account of an alleged fictitious liability, which was challenged in the appeal. However, the Tribunal, after considering the rejection of books of accounts and the upheld additions, concluded that no separate addition for the alleged fictitious liability was warranted. Therefore, the addition on this ground was deleted.

Issue 6: Addition under section 41 of the Act:
An addition was made under section 41 of the Act, which was also challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal, after reviewing the rejection of books of accounts and the upheld additions, decided that no separate addition under section 41 was justified. Consequently, the addition under this section was also deleted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, confirming some additions while deleting others based on the rejection of books of accounts and the upheld estimations. The decision emphasized the importance of accurate financial reporting and upheld the Assessing Officer's actions in estimating the gross profit based on the rejected books of accounts.

← Previous Next →