2018 (8) TMI 1372 - HC - Income Tax

High Court directs reevaluation of income tax assessment method, emphasizes specific disallowances

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi Versus M/s Raees Alam Siddiqui

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, directing a reevaluation of the matter based on merit rather than a fixed net profit rate ... Diallowance of expenses after estimation of profit u/s 144 - bogus/unverifiable purchase - bogus/unverifiable expense - Tribunal deleted the disallowance on the ground that, once the books of account had been rejected, the AO should not have disallowed the expenses for computing the income of the assessee which were claimed by the assessee. The AO should have estimated the income of the assessee by applying the net profit rate to the gross receipt of the assessee. Held that:- the AO while finalising the assessment under Section 144 of the Act had disallowed the claims of expenditure made by the assessee which could not be verified in absence of evidence led by the assessee to support the claim. It is permissible for the AO to disallow the claims while finalising the assessement in the manner provided under Section 144 of the Act to make best judgment assessment. It is not required for the AO to apply net profit at a particular rate while finalising the assessment under Section 144 of the Act. Method for estimating the income in the previous year of the assessee on the basis of net profit at a particular rate cannot be applied for all subsequent years. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and, therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the assessee on merit and not on the basis of method of net profit @ 11.5% applied for assessing the estimate of profit of the assessee for the previous year i.e. 2009-2010. Decided in favor of revenue. Issues:1. Application of Section 144 of the Income Tax Act for assessment.2. Deletion of additions for bogus/unverifiable purchases and expenses.3. Deletion of addition for unexplained investment and gift without opportunity.Analysis:Issue 1: Application of Section 144 of the Income Tax Act for assessmentThe High Court was presented with the question of whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) could assess income by applying the Net Profit (N.P.) Rate under Section 144 of the Act instead of making specific disallowances. The ITAT found that the AO rightly invoked Section 145(3) and Section 144 of the Act due to the assessee's failure to produce books of account, leading to an estimation of total income by the AO. However, the ITAT directed the AO to estimate income by applying the net profit rate to gross receipts, emphasizing that disallowances of expenses were not warranted in such circumstances.Issue 2: Deletion of additions for bogus/unverifiable purchases and expensesThe second issue involved the deletion of additions amounting to significant sums for bogus/unverifiable purchases and expenses claimed by the assessee. The ITAT had directed the AO to calculate the net profit of the assessee at a specific rate on total sales for all three proprietary concerns, overturning the previous assessment. The High Court noted that the AO had disallowed expenditure claims due to lack of evidence, a permissible action under Section 144, emphasizing that the method of estimating income based on net profit rate should not be uniformly applied across different years.Issue 3: Deletion of addition for unexplained investment and gift without opportunityThe final issue concerned the deletion of additions for unexplained investment and gift without giving an opportunity to the AO to verify the source of funds. The ITAT had directed the AO to reevaluate the source of investment from bank accounts and total income records. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was not in accordance with the law, setting aside the order and remitting the matter back for a merit-based decision, rather than relying on the specific net profit rate applied in a previous year.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, holding in favor of the Revenue against the assessee, and directing a reevaluation of the matter based on merit rather than a fixed net profit rate methodology.