Assessment under section 153A upheld with higher gross profit estimation and commission additions confirmed

ITAT Raipur upheld CIT(A)'s order confirming assessment u/s 153A for AY 2011-12 to 2019-20. Assessee's challenges regarding consolidated order validity under section 153D and ex-parte proceedings were dismissed for lack of substantiation. Tribunal confirmed additions including unaccounted income with 8% gross profit estimation versus assessee's declared 5%, and 1% commission on undisclosed sales. Assessee's non-compliance and evasive conduct during proceedings weakened their position. Court found no infirmity in lower authorities' orders given assessee's failure to provide plausible explanations or dispute involvement in bogus sales transactions.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals arising under the Income Tax Act, 1961, primarily include:

• Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified.
• Whether the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A are valid and sustainable in law.
• The correctness of the estimation of undisclosed income by applying an 8% gross profit rate on unaccounted sales instead of the 5% declared by the assessee.
• The validity of disallowance of commission @1% on alleged bogus sales transactions.
• Whether the interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was computed correctly.
• The validity of consolidated/common assessment orders and prior approval under section 153D of the Act.
• Procedural compliance concerning limitation and natural justice in the assessment process.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity of consolidated/common order and prior approval under section 153D (Additional Grounds 1 & 2)

The assessee challenged the validity of the consolidated approval granted under section 153D, contending that the assessment framed and demand raised were vitiated for want of prior approval by the competent authority. The Revenue contended that the additional ground did not raise a question of law necessary for correct assessment and relied on a recent decision where the Tribunal held that such grounds are not maintainable unless they affect tax liability.

The Tribunal examined the issue in light of a coordinate bench decision in Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT and the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Hitesh Golecha Vs. ACIT. The High Court had held that where the Assessing Officer obtains prior approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Jt. CIT) as mandated under section 153D, the assessment order is valid. The Court emphasized that the presumption of due diligence applies under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and mere assertion by the assessee that no application of mind was made cannot be accepted without evidence.

The Tribunal found that in the present case, the Jt. CIT had granted prior approval by a formal letter, and thus the mandate of section 153D was complied with. The Tribunal declined to admit the additional ground and dismissed the challenge to the validity of the consolidated assessment order.

Legality of ex-parte order by CIT(A) and assessment order under section 153A (Grounds 1 & 2)

The assessee contended that the appellate order passed ex-parte and the assessment order under section 153A were bad in law. However, the assessee failed to advance any substantive argument or evidence to substantiate this claim before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed these grounds as devoid of merit, noting that the CIT(A) had provided repeated opportunities to the assessee for representation, which were not availed.

Estimation of undisclosed income by applying 8% gross profit rate (Ground 3)

The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of unaccounted income by estimating gross profit (GP) at 8% on undisclosed sales, rejecting the assessee's declaration of 5%. The AO's decision was based on incriminating documents, loose papers, data seized from laptops and hard disks, and statements recorded during search and seizure operations. The AO found the 5% GP rate offered by the assessee to be unsubstantiated.

The CIT(A), after multiple opportunities to the assessee, confirmed the addition in absence of any representation or plausible explanation. The Tribunal noted the assessee's evasive conduct and non-compliance during hearings before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the AO's estimation was based on credible material and that the CIT(A) had deliberated thoroughly on the merits before confirming the addition.

Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 44,78,935/- for AY 2014-15 (and corresponding additions for other years) based on the 8% GP rate, dismissing the ground raised by the assessee.

Disallowance of commission @1% on alleged bogus sales (Ground 4)

This addition arose from incriminating documents found during search and seizure, showing that the assessee had issued bogus sales bills and returned cash after deducting VAT to various parties. The AO treated 1% commission on such bogus sales as income, amounting to Rs. 63,430/- for AY 2014-15. The assessee claimed these transactions were accounted for and taxed, and that addition would amount to double taxation.

The AO rejected this contention, relying on statements recorded during search and seizure and documentary evidence indicating the bogus nature of sales and commission payments. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition after the assessee failed to appear for hearings.

The Tribunal noted the absence of any plausible explanation or challenge to the incriminating material by the assessee. It further observed that the assessee's involvement in bogus sales bills was undisputed, and hence receipt of commission on such transactions was a reasonable inference. The Tribunal upheld the addition and dismissed the ground.

Computation of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C (Ground 5)

This ground was held to be consequential and academic, requiring no separate adjudication. The AO was directed to compute interest as per law after finalization of the assessment.

General and academic grounds (Ground 6)

These were dismissed as infructuous due to lack of any substantive contentions.

Limitation and condonation of delay

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were barred by delay ranging from 0 to 35 days. The assessee filed applications for condonation of delay citing justifiable reasons. The Tribunal found substance in these explanations and condoned the delay for all appeals, allowing them to be adjudicated on merits.

Conduct of the assessee and procedural observations

The Tribunal recorded that the assessee's representatives repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to appear on multiple occasions before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal issued strict directions that no further adjournments would be granted and proceeded to adjudicate the appeals in the absence of the assessee's representation.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

On the issue of validity of consolidated assessment orders and prior approval under section 153D, the Tribunal held:

"As the Jt. CIT, Range-Central, Raipur vide letter dated 16.12.2016... had granted the approval in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration... we do not find any substance in the contentions advanced by the Ld. AR, thus, reject the same. The validity of combined / consolidated assessment order, therefore, also acceptable following the analogy drawn in the case of Hitesh Golecha (supra)."

Regarding the estimation of undisclosed income by applying 8% GP rate:

"We do not find any extraneous exercise of powers by the Ld. CIT(A)... The Ld. CIT(A) was compelled to decide the appeal based on facts on record available before him after deliberating thoroughly at length on the merits... the assessee's conduct before us is also observed to be evasive and of a non-compliant... We uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A), with no interference on our part."

On the issue of commission disallowance on bogus sales:

"The assessee's involvement in providing of Bogus Sales bills in lieu of commission was never disputed by the assessee, therefore, receipt of commission by the assessee on such bogus transactions cannot be doubted... We do not find any perversity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), so we uphold the same."

On procedural and limitation issues:

"Considering the facts and reasons for delay... we find substance in the request of the assessee... the delay is condoned and appeals are allowed for adjudication."

On dismissal of ex-parte order challenge and general grounds:

"We do not find any substance in such contentions raised by the assessee... accordingly, the same therefore, are dismissed being bereft of merits."

Final determinations include dismissal of all appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-15 to 2019-20, with confirmation of additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A), including the application of an 8% GP rate on unaccounted sales and disallowance of commission on bogus sales. The Tribunal also upheld the validity of consolidated assessment orders under section 153A and prior approval under section 153D, and condoned delays in filing appeals.

---