2021 (8) TMI 504 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of Assessee, sets aside Assessing Officer's decision

M/s. Pooranchand Agarwal Versus DCIT (1), Bilaspur

The Tribunal set aside the Assessing Officer's decision to reject the Assessee's audited books of accounts under section 145(3) due to lack of specific ... Rejection of audited books of accounts u/s 145(3) - estimation of net profit - Addition of net profit @ 11.5% (before interest & depreciation) - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO has not specified or identified a single voucher which is not in order. No independent investigation was carried out by the AO, on the bills and vouchers furnished by assessee, which were examined on random basis. Further, the books of account of the assessee are duly audited. The Auditor has not made any adverse comment or pointed out any deficiency. In our view, the books of account were rejected without any basis. If there was violation of section 36(1)(va) of Income tax Act, the AO could disallow the same as per law. Therefore, we set aside the order of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts. Estimation of net profit - When similar gross profit and net profit from the same business is accepted by the revenue in earlier years, the revenue cannot increase the net profit of the assessee without specifying any cogent reason or bringing evidence of comparable instances of assessee’s engaged in similar trade or business. The AO estimated the net profit @ 12.5% which was though reduced to 11.5% by the ld. CIT(A), in our view, the estimation is without making any investigation or bringing comparable case on record, estimation made by the AO is not justified. Our view further strengthened by the fact that assessee has shown better gross profit and net profit comparative to A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 which we have referred above. The addition made by the AO which was upheld to the extent of 11.5% by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the AO is directed to delete the entire addition. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. Issues:1. Rejection of audited books of accounts under section 145(3)2. Estimation of net profit without basis3. Addition in total income based on estimationsAnalysis:Issue 1: Rejection of audited books of accounts under section 145(3)The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of account of the Assessee under section 145(3) due to inflated labour charges and incomplete muster rolls. The AO noted that the labour charges were excessively high, amounting to 57.73% of gross receipts, and found discrepancies in the records. The Assessee argued that the profit shown in the books was accurate, especially considering that most contracts were below the Schedule of Rate (SOR) and involved labour-intensive irrigation work. Despite the Assessee's explanations and submission of bills/vouchers, the AO rejected the books of account. However, the Tribunal found that the rejection lacked a specific irregularity or basis. The books were duly audited, and no adverse comments were made by the Auditor. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the AO's decision to reject the books of accounts.Issue 2: Estimation of net profit without basisThe AO estimated the net profit at 12.5% of turnover after rejecting the books of account. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced the estimation to 11.5%, upholding an addition to the income by Rs. 1.87 crores. The Assessee argued that previous assessments in A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 were completed under section 143(3) with accepted gross and net profit margins. The Assessee's declared gross profit and net profit for the current year were better than the previous years. The Tribunal observed that the revenue could not increase the net profit without substantial reasons or comparable evidence. As no investigation or comparable instances were presented, the estimation by the AO was deemed unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the entire addition to the income.Issue 3: Addition in total income based on estimationsThe Tribunal concluded that the AO's addition to the income, upheld by the CIT(A) at 11.5%, lacked a valid basis or investigation. Considering the Assessee's consistent profit margins in previous years and the absence of concrete evidence for increasing the net profit, the Tribunal set aside the addition and directed the AO to delete it entirely. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee were allowed, and the appeal was granted in favor of the Assessee.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.