2015 (1) TMI 1058 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decision on low profits from mobile sales, rejects Revenue's appeal

ITO, Ward 1(1), New Delhi Versus Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta

ITO, Ward 1(1), New Delhi Versus Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 13,80,077/- made by the AO on account of low gross profit from mobile handset sales.2. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 12,39,724/- made by the AO on account of low gross profit from mobile recharge coupons.3. Whether the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 13,80,077/- made by the AO on account of low gross profit from mobile handset sales:The assessee declared a GP rate of 1.19% on the sale of mobile sets. The AO, after a test check of various purchase and sale bills, concluded that the average GP earned was 2.25%. The AO rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, due to the absence of a stock register as per the Audit Report, and made an addition of Rs. 13,80,077/-. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, observing that the AO had not pointed out any discrepancies in the books of account and that the GP rate could not be worked out on selected items for the whole year. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee maintained a stock register for mobile sets, supported by a certificate from the auditor, and that the AO did not comment on the submissions/details/evidence furnished by the assessee in the remand report. The CIT(A) held that the AO was not justified in invoking section 145(3) and estimating the GP at 2%.2. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 12,39,724/- made by the AO on account of low gross profit from mobile recharge coupons:The AO observed that the assessee received a 4% margin from Bharti Airtel Ltd. but declared a GP ratio of only 0.69%. The AO made an addition of Rs. 12,39,724/- after estimating the GP rate at 2%. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the assessee passed on the margin to Spoke and Retailer, and the profit margin declared by the assessee was correct. The CIT(A) observed that the AO did not comment on the submissions/details/evidence furnished by the assessee in the remand report and that the assessee had provided enough details and evidence to substantiate the declared GP of 0.69%.3. Whether the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored:The Revenue argued that the remand report did not give any positive findings in favor of the assessee and that the CIT(A) inferred on his own that the AO was satisfied with the explanation. The Revenue contended that the case needed to be re-adjudicated by the CIT(A). However, the assessee maintained that the stock registers were maintained, and the GP from Bharti Airtel Ltd. was shared among the assessee, Retailer, and Spoke. The Tribunal found that the combined GP of the assessee for the relevant years was consistent and that the AO did not raise any objections against the written submissions filed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned and speaking order, finding no infirmity in it.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of low gross profit from mobile handset sales and mobile recharge coupons. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly assessed the facts and evidence presented by the assessee and that the AO's rejections and estimations were not justified. The order was pronounced in the open court on 31st Dec., 2014.