2015 (12) TMI 366 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision on rejecting books of accounts

The ACIT Central Circle-1, Surat Versus Garden Silk Mills Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the ... Estimation of income - Rejection of books of accounts - addition made on account of undervaluation of work-in-progress in the closing stock - CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of estimation of GP by holding that AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts but sustained the addition made on account of undervaluation of work-in-progress in the closing stock - Held that:- The law is well settled that the insignificant defects in the books of accounts should not be the basis of rejection of the entire books of accounts. In the present case, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has explained point-wise as to how the reasoning of the AO for rejection of books is not tenable in law. We are in agreement with the reasoning of the ld.CIT(A), as the finding is based on uncontroverted facts. The judicial pronouncements as relied by the ld.CIT-DR would not apply on the facts of the present case, as the facts are distinguishable. The ld.CIT-DR has relied on the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of S.Murugappa Chettiar vs. CIT (1987 (5) TMI 7 - KERALA High Court) in support of contention that difference in statement of stock to the bank and that disclosed to Revenue is a justified ground for rejection of books of accounts. The ld.CIT(A) has also given finding after verifying the facts in respect of objections of the AO regarding sundry debtor, which has been duly reconciled. Difference in work-in-progress is added back by the ld.CIT(A). Taking a holistic view of the entire matter, we do not see any reason to disturb the finding of the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, same is upheld. Moreover, in our considered view, the AO has not given any basis for estimation of net profit @ 5% of turnover. - Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of estimation of profit by rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act.2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the books of accounts were not validly rejected by the AO.3. Justification for the AO's estimation of profit and rejection of books of accounts.4. Reconciliation of discrepancies in sundry debtors and stock statements.5. Validity of reasons provided by the AO for rejecting the books of accounts.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Deletion of Additions Made by the AO on Account of Estimation of Profit by Rejecting the Books of Accounts Under Section 145 of the Income Tax ActThe AO made several disallowances and additions, including disallowance of commission paid to its Director, disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A, estimation of profit by rejecting the books of accounts, disallowance of interest, and disallowance of depreciation of capital goods. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of estimation of Gross Profit (GP) by holding that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts. However, the CIT(A) sustained the addition made on account of undervaluation of work-in-progress in the closing stock to the extent of Rs. 1,15,63,596/-.Issue 2: Whether the CIT(A) Was Justified in Holding That the Books of Accounts Were Not Validly Rejected by the AOThe CIT(A) examined each objection raised by the AO for rejecting the books of accounts and concluded that the AO was not justified. The CIT(A) found that the AO's reasons for rejection were inconsistent and not based on significant grounds. The CIT(A) elaborated on each point, such as improper disclosure of work-in-progress, discrepancies in sundry debtors, differences in stock statements, and non-furnishing of quantitative details for readymade garments, and provided detailed explanations for why these grounds were not sufficient for rejecting the books of accounts.Issue 3: Justification for the AO's Estimation of Profit and Rejection of Books of AccountsThe AO's estimation of profit was based on the rejection of the books of accounts due to alleged defects. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO did not provide a valid basis for rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profit. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not doubt the sales or purchases and did not provide any instance of bogus or inflated purchases. The CIT(A) also pointed out that the assessee was subjected to multiple audits, and the auditors did not make any adverse remarks regarding the accounts.Issue 4: Reconciliation of Discrepancies in Sundry Debtors and Stock StatementsThe CIT(A) addressed the discrepancies pointed out by the AO in the sundry debtors' figures and stock statements submitted to the bank. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not compare the detailed accounts and relied on total sundry creditors instead of detailed groupings. The CIT(A) verified the groupings and found that the balances were correctly reflected in the books of the corresponding companies. The CIT(A) also noted that the stock statements provided to the bank were as of 25/03/2005, and there was no requirement for them to match the books of accounts as of 31/03/2005.Issue 5: Validity of Reasons Provided by the AO for Rejecting the Books of AccountsThe CIT(A) examined each reason provided by the AO for rejecting the books of accounts, including improper disclosure of work-in-progress, discrepancies in sundry debtors, differences in stock statements, non-furnishing of quantitative details for readymade garments, no proper disclosure of persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b), inter-group transactions, non-furnishing of separate trading accounts, and transfer to general reserve. The CIT(A) found that none of these reasons were valid grounds for rejecting the books of accounts. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO should have based his findings on material available on record and provided a detailed analysis of each item impacting the profit of the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profit. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide a valid basis for his actions and that the CIT(A) had thoroughly examined and addressed each objection raised by the AO. The Tribunal also highlighted that insignificant defects should not be the basis for rejecting the entire books of accounts and that the AO should have made a detailed analysis of each item affecting the profit. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.