2003 (2) TMI 420 - AT - Income Tax

Court upholds deletion of trading addition & non-genuine purchases, rejects estimated GP rate,

The court upheld the deletion of the trading addition and addition on account of non-genuine purchases. The appellant successfully argued against the ... Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts Issues involved:1. Deletion of trading addition despite the application of section 145(1) and estimated GP rate.2. Deletion of addition on account of non-genuine purchases.Detailed Analysis:1. The first issue in this case pertains to the deletion of a trading addition of Rs. 6,47,344 and the challenge to the order of the CIT(A) dated 11th August, 1998. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer correctly applied the provisions of section 145(1) and the estimated GP rate of 8 per cent was fair and reasonable. However, during the appeal, the appellant argued that section 145 of the IT Act was wrongly invoked as there were no defects in the books of account. The appellant further argued that a low GP rate alone is not sufficient to reject the books of account. The appellant highlighted that the expenditure and payments were properly vouched in the books, especially since all payments were received by cheque from a government body. The appellant also compared the GP rate of the current year with a previous year of larger work magnitude to justify the differences. The Appellate Tribunal noted that no defects were found in the books of account, leading to the acceptance of the declared GP rate by the appellant. The Tribunal also considered the varying work magnitudes over different years, ultimately finding no fault in the CIT(A) order and confirming it.2. The second issue involves the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 on account of non-genuine purchases, which was deleted by the CIT(A). During the appeal hearing, it was revealed that the alleged seller denied any transaction with the appellant. As a result, the issue was suggested to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with both parties agreeing to this course of action. Consequently, Ground No. 2 was restored for reexamination by the CIT(A) after providing the concerned parties with a hearing opportunity. The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed based on these observations for statistical purposes.