2016 (8) TMI 372 - HC - Income Tax

Income Tax Appeal Dismissed for Lower G.P. Rate Decision

The appeal challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to apply a Gross Profit (G.P.) rate of 12.38% instead of 25% on the turnover declared ... GP estimation - rejection of books of accounts - Held that:- On the rejection of the books of accounts on the ground that an assessee had returned low gross profit percentage, it is open to the authorities to ascertain the correct GP rate. In such circumstances, the adoption of the GP rate instead of adding of ₹ 1.32 crores to the income of the assessee cannot be said to be perverse or irrational. The CIT(Appeals) had the GP rates of five assessees in respect of Phagwara and three in respect of Jalandhar. The GP rates of assessees of Phagwara ranged from 16.21% to 18.30% whereas the GP rates of three assesses at Jalandhar were 10.64%, 12.09% and 13.6%. The CIT (Appeals) adopted the GP rate of 25%. There is, however, nothing in the order to indicate why the GP rate of 25% was adopted. The average of GP rates of Phagwara and Jalandhar was also much less. The Tribunal on the other hand adopted the average GP rate of assessees at Jalandhar as the assessee in the case before us also carried on the business at Jalandhar. The Tribunal observed that the CIT (Appeals) had fixed the GP rate of 25% which was not based on any material or cogent reasoning. This finding of the Tribunal is based on facts which is neither perverse nor absurd. Issues:1. Discrepancy in Gross Profit (G.P.) rate determination by authorities.2. Application of Best Judgment Assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Rejection of books of accounts and adoption of G.P. rate by the authorities.4. Disallowance of bogus purchases and evasion of taxes.Issue 1: Discrepancy in Gross Profit (G.P.) rate determination by authorities:The appeal challenges the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's direction to the Assessing Officer to apply a G.P. rate of 12.38% on the turnover declared by the respondent-assessee, differing from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who fixed the G.P. rate at 25%. The Tribunal's decision was based on the respondent-assessee's appeal against the addition of about &8377; 1.32 crores to its income due to alleged bogus purchases. The questions of law raised include the justification for applying a G.P. rate and the relevance of specific investigations in determining the G.P. rate.Issue 2: Application of Best Judgment Assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act due to discrepancies in the G.P. rates declared by the assessee for previous assessment years. The best judgment assessment under Section 144 allows authorities to determine the total income or loss based on gathered material when the assessee fails to comply with notice requirements. The rejection of books and subsequent assessment were challenged by both the department and the respondent-assessee.Issue 3: Rejection of books of accounts and adoption of G.P. rate by the authorities:The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the creditors' confirmations and bills, leading to the rejection of books of accounts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the rejection but applied a G.P. rate of 25% instead of adding the disputed amount to the income. The Tribunal, however, adopted a G.P. rate of 12.38% based on the average rates of other assesses at Jalandhar, where the business was conducted. The Tribunal's decision was deemed reasonable and not based on irrational grounds.Issue 4: Disallowance of bogus purchases and evasion of taxes:The Assessing Officer highlighted alleged bogus purchases by the assessee to reduce the G.P. and evade tax payments. The CIT (Appeals) disagreed with adding the disputed amount to the income, considering the impact on the G.P. rate. The Tribunal's decision to adopt a lower G.P. rate instead of adding the amount was based on factual analysis and not considered perverse or irrational. The appeal was dismissed as it did not raise a substantial question of law, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the G.P. rate determination.The judgment addresses the discrepancies in G.P. rate determination, the application of best judgment assessment, rejection of books of accounts, and the treatment of alleged bogus purchases for tax evasion. The Tribunal's decision to adopt a lower G.P. rate based on factual analysis was upheld, dismissing the appeal challenging the G.P. rate determination.