2013 (12) TMI 601 - HC - Income Tax

Court validates Assessing Officer's account rejection, upholds Tribunal's profit estimation decision

The court upheld the rejection of the books of account by the Assessing Officer and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing that the Assessing ... Rejection of books of account - Held that:- From sub-section (3) of Section 145 of the Act it can be concluded that it is the absolute subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee - The method of accounting is not under consideration - If there is an increase in the cost/purchase price, there will be a corresponding rise in the price of sale - The assessee could not justify its claim that there is increase in the cost of inputs with there being no corresponding rise in the price of sale - There is no significant increase in the expenses viz. personnel cost, administrative & selling expenses, interest & finance charges, etc. considering the increase in turnover reported from year to year - The increase in output costs is almost insignificant compared to the increase in input costs - The steep decline in the rate of net profit, the assessee cannot, therefore, attribute to the increase in input costs - The estimation of profit by the AO is reasonable - The order of rejection is not required to be expressed - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Implied rejection of books of account by Assessing Officer without proper findings.2. Upholding of implied rejection of accounts by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.3. Rejection of accounts without issuing notice to the Assessee.4. Ignoring statutory records maintained by Assessee under Central Excise Act.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the rejection of the books of account by the Assessing Officer and whether such rejection was justified. The appellant contended that there was no valid basis for the rejection and emphasized the importance of explicit rejection over implied rejection. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer's decision was based on conjectures and surmises, lacking concrete evidence to invalidate the books of account. Additionally, the burden of proof regarding the genuineness and correctness of the accounts was highlighted as a responsibility of the Revenue.2. The court delved into the interpretation of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, which governs the method of accounting for income computation. It was noted that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction about the correctness or completeness of the accounts is a subjective determination. The court opined that the expression of satisfaction need not be explicit in the order and can be inferred from the overall assessment. In this case, the Assessing Officer's decision was supported by detailed reasoning, scrutinizing the accounts and profitability. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to validate the rejection of the books of account based on the evidence presented.3. The issue of whether the rejection of accounts was done without any material on record was also scrutinized. The court found that the Assessing Officer had thoroughly examined the accounts and provided justifications for the rejection. The discretion granted under Section 145 was deemed to have been judiciously exercised, as evidenced by the detailed analysis conducted. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's decision did not necessitate explicit wording of rejection, as long as the rationale for rejection was evident from the assessment order.4. Regarding the estimation of profit made by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal's decision to deem the estimation as reasonable was upheld by the court. The court found no legal grounds to overturn the Tribunal's factual findings on the estimation of profit. The relevance of case law cited by the appellant was also discussed, with the court concluding that the issues at hand pertained more to the compliance with Section 145 of the Act rather than other legal considerations.In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no legal elements were present to warrant a reversal of the Tribunal's decision. The rejection of books of account and the estimation of profit were deemed appropriate based on the factual and legal analysis conducted throughout the proceedings.