2023 (6) TMI 224 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal rejects Revenue's addition based on low GP rate, citing lack of valid reasons for estimation.

The ACIT, Circle-47 (1), New Delhi Versus Ashish Bansal

The Court upheld the deletion of an addition by the Revenue due to a low GP rate, as the AO failed to provide valid reasons for estimating the GP rate at ... Addition on account of low GP rate - GP rate in year under consideration[ 2015 - 16] was 0.41% as compared to GP rate of 8.59% in A. Y. 2014 - 15 - sole ground/allegation taken by AO for enhancing GP rate from 0.41% to 1% of turnover is that there was significant rise in the turnover of jewellery segment but the GP rate was reduced abnormally - HELD THAT:- It is a well accepted principle tax jurisprudence that the Assessing Officer cannot sit on the arm chair of a businessman assessee to replace his business strategy by his own whims and fancies. When the assessee took decision to reduce GP rate with an intention to fetch high turnover resulting into increase in the total net profit and under this strategy the assessee under took turnover of 34 times in comparison to the immediately preceding year taking sky high increase in the turnover which resulted into reduction of GP rate to 0.41%. From the copy of the three years comparative chart with breakup of jewellery segment, bullion segment and Job work segment it is clear that when the turnover of assessee was less than the GP rate was 8.59% and when the assessee under business strategy increase the turnover to 34 times to Rs 292.13 crore then the GP rate was reduce to 0.41% the GP rate of other segments such as artificial jewellery, semi precious stones and job work also faced marginal changes but the AO only noted abnormal fall in GP rate of jewellery without pointing out any defects or discrepancies in the audited books of accounts of assessee and this approach without any other positive material or evidence, only on standalone basis is not correct and justified. CIT(A) was right in deleting addition made by the Assessing Officer without any justified reasoning and cogent basis - Decided against revenue. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in estimating gross profit (GP) of the jewellery segment at 1% of turnover and making an addition where the assessee declared GP at 0.41%, without rejecting the books of account under section 145(3). 2. Whether a significant fall in GP rate compared to the immediately preceding year, standing alone, constitutes sufficient basis to apply best judgment assessment and substitute the assessee's declared GP rate. 3. Whether the first appellate authority was correct in deleting the GP addition where the AO did not point out defects/discrepancies in audited books or comply with statutory prerequisites for rejecting books under section 145(3). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legality of AO estimating GP at 1% without invoking section 145(3) Legal framework: Section 145(3) permits rejection of books of account and resort to best judgment assessment where there is doubt as to correctness or completeness of books, or where the prescribed accounting method or standards have not been followed. Precedent Treatment: The record shows reliance by parties on various authorities (cited in the order) addressing limits on AO's power to estimate income; the Tribunal's reasoning is governed by the statutory requirement of section 145(3). Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the AO's assessment order and the appellate record and found (i) audited accounts and Form 3CD were on record, (ii) the AO conducted verifications by calling for details (sales, purchases, stock sheets, VAT returns, etc.), and (iii) the AO did not point to any error, discrepancy or failure to produce documents that would cast doubt on the books' correctness or completeness. The AO's estimate to apply 1% GP was based solely on a comparison with GP declared by other traders and the fall in the assessee's GP, without making a finding satisfying the conditions of section 145(3). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an AO cannot substitute an assessee's declared GP by estimation under best judgment unless section 145(3) conditions are met; absence of findings on defects/discrepancies renders such estimation unsustainable. Obiter - remarks on business strategy and market GP norms used for contextual analysis. Conclusions: The AO's estimation at 1% without rejecting books under section 145(3) was not legally sustainable; the addition based on that estimation was therefore deleted by the Tribunal (upholding the first appellate authority). Issue 2: Sufficiency of a substantial year-on-year fall in GP as sole basis for addition Legal framework: Principles of assessment require that an AO's action to re-compute or estimate income must be supported by material showing defects in books, incorrectness, or non-compliance with accounting standards; mere disparity or fall in margin triggers inquiry but does not, by itself, justify best judgment estimation. Precedent Treatment: The decision treats low gross profit rate as a ground for inquiry, not an automatic ground for addition; prior authorities cited by the parties were considered in the context of whether low GP alone justified rejection/estimation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that a steep increase in turnover (from Rs. 8.23 crore to Rs. 292.13 crore) coincided with a drastic decline in GP (from 8.59% to 0.41%). The Tribunal recognized that a taxpayer may adopt a legitimate business strategy of reducing margin to increase turnover and net profit. In absence of any identified discrepancies in audited accounts or documentary non-compliance, an abnormal fall in GP, standing alone, does not permit the AO to replace the assessee's declared GP with an estimated rate. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - substantial fall in GP, without positive material indicating defects or incompleteness in books, is insufficient to justify estimating income at market/comparative GP rates. Obiter - observations on the impropriety of substituting business judgment of a taxpayer by AO's preferences. Conclusions: The single circumstance of abnormal fall in GP (even if significant) cannot be the sole basis for making addition; the AO's reliance on that alone was inadequate and unsustainable. Issue 3: Competence of the first appellate authority to delete addition where AO did not invoke statutory rejection powers Legal framework: Appellate authorities have powers co-terminus with the AO but must apply statutory provisions and judicial principles; deletion of an addition is warranted where AO's action lacks statutory or evidentiary basis. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal noted contentions that appellate powers are co-terminus with AO's but emphasized that those powers do not validate an assessment that itself lacks statutory compliance (i.e., failure to invoke section 145(3) when required). Interpretation and reasoning: The first appellate authority examined the AO's reasons, the material on record, and found no finding that books were incorrect, incomplete, or non-compliant. Given that the AO had not met the conditions to reject books and that documentary evidence and explanations were furnished and not impugned, the appellate deletion of the addition was held to be justified. The Tribunal found no perversity or legal error in the appellate findings and declined interference. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an appellate authority may delete an addition premised on best judgment estimation where the AO has not complied with the statutory prerequisites for abandoning the books and resorting to estimation. Obiter - the Tribunal's emphasis on fair application of appellate powers and respect for audited records. Conclusions: The first appellate authority correctly deleted the AO's GP addition; the Tribunal upheld that deletion and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Cross-References and Interrelation of Issues The issues are interrelated: Issue 1 (requirement to invoke section 145(3)) and Issue 2 (insufficiency of fall in GP as sole basis) converge to support Issue 3 (validity of appellate deletion). The Tribunal's conclusion rests on the combined proposition that (a) statutory conditions for rejection/estimation were not satisfied and (b) a business strategy legitimately leading to lower GP cannot be supplanted by AO's estimate without positive material.