2020 (2) TMI 1228 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decisions on Revenue's Appeal, All Grounds Justified (A)

DCIT, Circle-3 (2), New Delhi. Versus Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The reduction of the estimated gross profit rate, deletion ... Gross profit estimation - absence of production of supporting details/books of accounts by the assessee company - CIT-A reducing the estimated gross profit of the assessee company from 10.73% to 8.75% - HELD THAT:- Since the books of account were in the possession of the Official Liquidator and the same were not received by the assessee at the time of handing over of the possession, therefore, the allegation of the AO that the assessee failed to produce the books of account are contrary to the facts as the assessee cannot be expected to do an impossible task. Further, had the profit percentage of the assessee been higher, then, the assessee company would not have gone into financial trouble. The observation of the ld.CIT(A) that due to change in the technology and use of plastic material/poly plastic/can the turnover as well as the margin of the assessee company started declining and the company ran into financial trouble in 1997 and, subsequently, gone into liquidation also could not be controverted by the ld. DR. In view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) while reducing the GP rate to 8.75% as against 10.73% taken by the AO, we do not find any infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Addition on account of Gross Profit ratio @ 10.35% - amalgamation of M/s Asian Closures Ltd. into the assessee company in the absence of production of supporting details/books of accounts - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). He has given a finding that due to change in technology and due to substantial fall in sales during the year as compared to preceding years, the turnover and GP rate has gone down. Nothing contrary was brought to our notice to controvert the above finding given by the CIT(A). In view of the above and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Deduction u/s 80HH and deduction u/s 80I - assessee company has not furnished evidence to justify the claims and also in the absence of production of supporting details/books of accounts - HELD THAT:- From the various details furnished by the assessee in the paper book, which were filed before the AO and the CIT(A), we find substantial details were filed before the lower authorities to prove that manufacturing activity of the assessee company were situated in the backward area and, for that, the assessee has filed the Notification filed by the Central Government. He has also filed documents substantiating Sales-tax exemption of Haryana Government for setting up industry in backward area. The manufacturing of flexible packaging laminates, open top sanitary cans and general line metal cans is also not in dispute. The certificate from the auditor was also furnished before the AO. The assessee has substantiated that it has employed more than ten employees during the year and has retrenched 79 employees out of 131 employees and permission granted for retrenchment of the workers by the competent authority. Thus, in our opinion, the assessee has substantiated with evidence regarding the manufacturing activity undertaken by him in the backward area and fulfillment of all conditions for claim of deduction u/s 80HH and 80I. In the order for A.Y. 1991-92, the Tribunal had given the observation that the assessee company is entitled to deduction u/s 80HH and 80I. However, it was not claimed because it was a case of loss. In this view of the matter and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) on this issue, we find no infirmity in his order on this issue. Accordingly the same is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Reduction of estimated gross profit rate.2. Deletion of addition on account of gross profit ratio due to amalgamation.3. Allowance of deductions under Sections 80HH and 80I.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Reduction of Estimated Gross Profit Rate:The Revenue contested the reduction of the estimated gross profit rate from 10.73% to 8.75% by the CIT(A). The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing flexible packaging laminates, open-top sanitary cans, and general line metal cans, failed to produce books of account due to their seizure by an official liquidator following a liquidation order. The AO estimated the gross profit rate at 10.73% based on the average gross profit rate of the preceding and current years. However, the CIT(A) reduced this rate to 8.75%, considering the company's financial troubles, decline in turnover due to technological changes, and inability to produce books of account due to circumstances beyond its control. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's estimation was unjustified given the company's financial stress and the circumstances surrounding the non-production of books.2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Gross Profit Ratio Due to Amalgamation:The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,76,015 made by the AO, who had adjusted the gross profit rate to 10.35% for the amalgamated company, M/s Asian Closures Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the significant decline in sales and the change in technology affected the company's margins. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the decline in turnover and gross profit rate was justified and supported by the evidence presented.3. Allowance of Deductions Under Sections 80HH and 80I:The Revenue disputed the CIT(A)'s allowance of deductions under Sections 80HH and 80I, amounting to Rs. 56,49,212 and Rs. 70,61,553, respectively. The AO had disallowed these claims due to the absence of supporting evidence and books of account. The CIT(A) allowed the deductions, noting that the assessee had provided substantial evidence, including audited balance sheets, certificates from auditors, and notifications from the Central Government, proving that the manufacturing activities were conducted in a backward area. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had fulfilled all conditions for the deductions and provided sufficient evidence of its manufacturing activities and compliance with the relevant provisions.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The reduction of the estimated gross profit rate, deletion of the addition on account of gross profit ratio due to amalgamation, and allowance of deductions under Sections 80HH and 80I were all found to be justified based on the evidence and circumstances presented. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the unique circumstances of the assessee, including the impact of technological changes and financial difficulties, in making such determinations.