2015 (1) TMI 618 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal adjusts Gross Profit rate to 3.53% in tax appeal decision

Suresh Jindal Prop. Versus M/s Swastik Impex C/o Vinay Goel CA Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Karnal and Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Karnal Versus Suresh Jindal Prop. M/s Swastik Impex Karnal

Suresh Jindal Prop. Versus M/s Swastik Impex C/o Vinay Goel CA Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Karnal and Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Karnal Versus ... Issues Involved:1. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3).2. Determination of the appropriate Gross Profit (G.P.) rate.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Books of Accounts under Section 145(3):The primary issue was whether the books of accounts maintained by the assessee could be rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted several discrepancies in the assessee's records, particularly the lack of item-wise quality specification of timber on the sale vouchers, which led to the conclusion that the assessee was not reflecting the true picture of his gross profit. The AO issued a detailed show cause notice, comparing the assessee's G.P. rate with other similar businesses, and ultimately rejected the books of accounts, applying a G.P. rate of 4.90%.The assessee contended before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] that it was not feasible to maintain a trading account for each type of timber and that the stock register and item-wise inventory were duly produced. However, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, confirming the rejection of the books under Section 145(3) due to the noted deficiencies.2. Determination of the Appropriate Gross Profit Rate:The second issue was the determination of a reasonable G.P. rate. The AO applied a G.P. rate of 4.90% based on comparable cases, while the assessee declared a G.P. rate of 2.58%. The CIT(A) reduced the G.P. rate to 4%, considering it fair and reasonable.Both the assessee and the revenue appealed against this decision. The assessee argued that the G.P. rate should be closer to the declared rate of 2.58%, citing an increasing trend in their G.P. rate over the years. The revenue, on the other hand, contended that the CIT(A) erred in reducing the G.P. rate to 4% instead of maintaining the AO's rate of 4.90%.The Tribunal reviewed similar cases, including those of Shri Krishan Kumar and Jai Parkash, where the G.P. rates were determined to be in the range of 3.61% to 3.63% for the same assessment year. The Tribunal concluded that a G.P. rate of 3.53%, as applied in the case of Sat Paul & Sons for the same business line and assessment year, would be appropriate for the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to the noted discrepancies. However, it determined that the G.P. rate should be 3.53%, aligning with the comparable case of Sat Paul & Sons, rather than the 4.90% applied by the AO or the 4% determined by the CIT(A). Both the appeals by the assessee and the revenue were partly allowed, adjusting the G.P. rate to 3.53%.Order pronounced in open court on 22-09-2014.