2016 (5) TMI 347 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants appeal on delay, reduces income addition, upholds Section 145(3), stresses record-keeping.

Smt. Pushpa Gupta Versus The ACIT, Circle- 2, Jaipur

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, condoning the delay in filing the appeal, reducing the trading income addition based on gross ... Determination of gross profit rate - Held that:- We find that the assessee has not maintained the stock register as to production of the items being manufactured by the assessee. Hence, the lower authorities have rightly invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. We further find from the record that Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 9-01-2012 in assessee's own case had made a lump sum addition of ₹ 5.00 lacs against gross profit rate of 8.81% shown by the assessee in the assessment year 2008-09. By respectfully, following the decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09 (supra) , a lump sum addition of ₹ 5.00 lacs is directed to be made which will meet the ends of justice to both the parties. - Decided partly in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Addition of trading income based on gross profit rate.3. Invocation of Section 145(3) due to lack of proper stock maintenance.4. Comparison with previous year's assessment for gross profit rate determination.Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The appeal filed by the assessee was initially considered time-barred due to a delay of 40 days. The assessee attributed the delay to continuous illness preventing contact with their legal representative. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons provided and citing the case law of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, condoned the delay, emphasizing the need for substantial justice and a liberal approach in such matters.Addition of Trading Income Based on Gross Profit Rate:The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of account due to the absence of quantitative details and stock registers, invoking Section 145(3) of the Act. The AO estimated the gross profit rate at 10%, resulting in a trading addition of Rs. 61,00,817/-. The CIT(A) confirmed a trading addition of Rs. 7,90,355/-, considering the past history and a gross profit rate of 8.95% from the previous year. The Tribunal upheld a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- based on the gross profit rate of 8.81% from the previous assessment year, aligning with the decision of the Coordinate Bench.Invocation of Section 145(3) Due to Lack of Proper Stock Maintenance:The AO invoked Section 145(3) due to the assessee's failure to maintain proper stock registers, leading to an estimation of gross profit rate and subsequent trading additions. The Tribunal concurred with this decision, emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate records for proper verification.Comparison with Previous Year's Assessment for Gross Profit Rate Determination:The Tribunal compared the current year's gross profit rate with the previous year's assessment to determine the trading additions. By following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case from the previous year, a lump sum addition was directed to maintain justice for both parties, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of delay in filing the appeal, addition of trading income based on gross profit rate, invocation of Section 145(3) due to lack of proper stock maintenance, and comparison with the previous year's assessment for gross profit rate determination, ultimately partly allowing the appeal of the assessee.