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>Assessing Officer Cannot Make Separate Additions After Rejecting Books | Estimation of Profit Upheld</h1> <h3>Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawala Versus The Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi.</h3> Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawala Versus The Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Treatment of Sundry Creditors as Cash Credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Estimation of Taxable Income based on Turnover Percentage.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Treatment of Sundry Creditors as Cash Credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The primary issue in this case was whether the entire amount of sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 56,68,960/- should be treated as cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in the business of scrap trading, had shown sundry creditors in the balance sheet. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 133(6) to verify the genuineness of these creditors, but the notices were returned unserved. The assessee failed to produce the books of accounts for verification, leading the AO to reject the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act and treat the sundry creditors as unexplained cash credits under Section 68.The Tribunal noted that once the AO rejected the books of accounts, he could not make separate additions based on the same books. The AO should have proceeded to estimate the profit instead. This view was supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in PCIT Vs. Tayab Yunus Barudgar and the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in Amitabh Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Both courts held that after rejecting the books of accounts, the AO could not rely on them to make further additions under Section 68. The Tribunal thus deleted the addition of Rs. 56,68,960/- on account of bogus sundry creditors.2. Estimation of Taxable Income based on Turnover Percentage:The second issue was the estimation of taxable income. The AO, after rejecting the books of accounts, made an estimated disallowance of 15% of the total purchases, amounting to Rs. 40,02,234/-. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] restricted the estimated addition to 2% of the turnover, following the principle of consistency from previous years.The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and noted that the AO, having rejected the books of accounts, should estimate the profit based on the turnover. The assessee had disclosed a net profit of 1.79%, which the CIT(A) enhanced to 2%. The Tribunal upheld this estimation, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Tayab Yunus Barudgar, which confirmed the estimation of net profit at 2% of total unregistered dealer (URD) purchases as proper and fair. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal to reduce the net profit estimation to 1.79% and confirmed the CIT(A)'s order to estimate the net profit at 2% of the turnover.Conclusion:The Tribunal's judgment emphasized that once the books of accounts are rejected, the AO should not make separate additions based on the same books but should estimate the profit. The estimation of net profit at 2% of the turnover was upheld, aligning with the principle of consistency and previous judicial precedents. The addition of Rs. 56,68,960/- on account of bogus sundry creditors was deleted, and the net profit estimation at 2% of the turnover was confirmed.
TaxTMI 