ITAT adopts 2.21% profit margin for business income estimation under section 145(3) after rejecting books

The ITAT Chennai modified the CIT(A)'s order regarding profit estimation after rejecting books of accounts under section 145(3). The tribunal initially considered applying 0.57% profit margin based on the assessee's average profits from comparable years (FY 2011-12 to 2016-17, excluding FY 2012-13). However, since the assessment under section 143(3) resulted in profit assessment at 2.21% of total sales turnover, the tribunal adopted this higher rate of 2.21% for estimating net profit margin on sales turnover for AY 2013-14. The AO was directed to calculate estimated business income accordingly, with interest and commission to be added separately. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A.
2. Rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profit.
3. Disallowance of specific expenses.
4. Validity of seized materials.
5. Nature of discrepancies in accounts.
6. Estimation of profit percentage.

Summary:

Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 153A:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act and sustaining the search assessment without proper reasons. The tribunal noted that the search and seizure operation conducted on the assessee led to the discovery of parallel sets of accounts, which justified the assumption of jurisdiction.

Rejection of Books of Accounts and Estimation of Profit:
The CIT(A) rejected the books of accounts maintained by the assessee and estimated the profit at 30% of the total turnover based on the profit margin of the immediately preceding year. The tribunal upheld the rejection of the books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to discrepancies but modified the profit estimation from 30% to 2.21% of the sales turnover, considering the average profit margin of comparable years.

Disallowance of Specific Expenses:
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the disallowance of various expenses such as production and processing expenses, repairs and maintenance, and salary charges. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not address these specific disallowances individually but subsumed them under the estimated business income.

Validity of Seized Materials:
The tribunal considered the validity of the seized materials, which included parallel sets of accounts and unaccounted receipts/payments. The CIT(A) found the reasons given by the assessee for discrepancies in the accounts to be reasonable due to practical difficulties in maintaining accurate records. However, the tribunal upheld the rejection of the books of accounts based on the seized materials.

Nature of Discrepancies in Accounts:
The CIT(A) observed that the discrepancies in the accounts pointed out by the AO could not be wholly attributed to wrong claims of expenditure by the assessee. The tribunal agreed with this observation, noting that the assessed income resulting in a 57.12% profit margin was abnormally high and indicative of errors in the AO's findings.

Estimation of Profit Percentage:
The tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit from 30% to 2.21% of the sales turnover, based on the average profit margin of the assessee in comparable years. The tribunal found this percentage to be more reasonable and reflective of the assessee's actual business performance.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by modifying the profit estimation and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The tribunal directed the AO to work out the estimated income from the business accordingly.

---