TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes substantial evidence & proper justification for rejecting accounts. Remands for comprehensive review.</h1> <h3>PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-21 Versus M/s MEHTA CONSTRUCTION CO.</h3> PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-21 Versus M/s MEHTA CONSTRUCTION CO. - [2018] 402 ITR 281 (Del) Issues:1. Rejection of Assessee's books of accounts by Assessing Officer2. Application of Gross Profit Rate by Assessing Officer3. Lower Appellate Authority's decision to set aside Assessing Officer's orderIssue 1: Rejection of Assessee's books of accounts by Assessing Officer:The Assessing Officer rejected the Assessee's books of accounts for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 due to the Assessee's failure to maintain stock registers and other primary documentary evidence. The AO imposed a Gross Profit (GP) Rate of 5% for three years and 3.5% for AY 2008-09 under Section 145, leading to disputes regarding the correctness of the rejection.Issue 2: Application of Gross Profit Rate by Assessing Officer:The Assessing Officer applied a GP Rate of 5% and 3.5% for different assessment years instead of the rates claimed by the Assessee. The Commissioner of Appeals disagreed with the AO's decision, emphasizing that the rejection of books of accounts should be based on substantial evidence and that the AO should have provided the Assessee with an opportunity to rebut before estimating profits. The CIT(A) held that the AO's rejection was unjustified and deleted the additions made by the AO.Issue 3: Lower Appellate Authority's decision to set aside Assessing Officer's order:The ITAT, in its judgment, noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide specific findings on why correct profits could not be deduced from the Assessee's maintained books of accounts. The ITAT relied on precedent and held that the absence of a stock register alone was insufficient grounds for rejecting the books of accounts. The ITAT rejected the Revenue's appeals and allowed the Assessee's appeals for the two assessment years. However, the High Court observed that both the ITAT and CIT(A) superficially examined the material and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh findings after considering all relevant materials.In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of substantial evidence and proper justification for rejecting books of accounts. The court highlighted the need for a thorough examination of materials before making decisions and remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive review.
TaxTMI 