2012 (2) TMI 155 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decisions, Emphasizes Fair Income Assessment

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in all three appeals, dismissing the Revenue's challenges. It emphasized the significance of fair income ... Calculation of Profits - GP of preceding assessment year vis a vis average of last two assessment year - Held That:- In the case of Best Judgment assessment OR rejection of books, the estimates of income must be honest and fair and should not be arbitrary, although some element of guess work is necessary. There being no material to suggest that the GP rate applied by the CIT(A) was not reasonable or was without any basis, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and the ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Additions on account of unverifiable purchases and unverifiable consumption - Held That:- When CIT has upheld the action of AO in rejecting books of account and applied GP rate there is no justification for making any addition on the basis of same rejected account books on account of the defects in the account books. Payment of PF & ESI before date of filing of return - Held That:- In view of Sai Consulting Engineers P. Ltd (Ahmedabad bench), deduction allowed under 43B. Issues:1. Application of GP rate in assessment years.2. Rejection of books of accounts by AO.3. Addition on account of unverifiable purchases and consumption of color and chemicals.4. Disallowance under section 43B of the Act.Issue 1: Application of GP rate in assessment years:In the first appeal for the assessment year 2001-2002, the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s direction to adopt the GP of the preceding assessment year instead of the average of the last two assessment years. The AO had estimated the income by applying the average GP rate of the last two years, while the CIT(A) applied the GP rate of the immediately preceding year. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision was reasonable as the GP rate applied was based on the preceding year's performance, which was upheld. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground.Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts by AO:In the second appeal for the assessment year 2003-2004, the Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowances made by the AO on unverifiable purchases and consumption of color and chemicals. The AO had rejected the books of accounts due to defects and estimated the income based on the GP rate of the preceding year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that once the accounts were rejected and GP addition made, further additions on the same basis were not justified. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds.Issue 3: Addition on account of unverifiable purchases and consumption of color and chemicals:The third appeal for the assessment year 2004-2005 raised similar issues as the previous year. The Tribunal, based on its decision for the earlier year, dismissed the Revenue's grounds as they were identical and lacked merit. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's claim for disallowance under section 43B of the Act, citing a precedent favoring the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals of the Revenue, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) in each case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of fair and reasonable estimates in income assessment, especially in cases of rejected accounts, and rejected the Revenue's contentions across all issues raised in the appeals.