Assessment order set aside for rushed completion based on counsel's unauthorized statement without proper book verification under section 145(3)

ITAT Lucknow set aside the assessment order and directed fresh assessment after finding that the AO completed assessment hurriedly based on counsel's statement agreeing to 5.5% net profit estimation without proper verification of books of account. The tribunal held that counsel cannot make surrender statements without assessee's approval and AO should have called responsible company person to record statement. The AO failed to examine books properly to invoke section 145(3) provisions for rejection. Additionally, the tribunal deleted 5% labour charges disallowance made on ad hoc basis without pointing specific defects in bills and vouchers. The matter was restored to AO for de novo assessment with proper verification of books instead of relying on counsel's statement. CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether an agreed addition to income based on a net profit rate accepted by the assessee's counsel without explicit authorization binds the assessee and precludes challenge to the addition.Whether the Assessing Officer can estimate net profit without rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act.Whether an addition made on the basis of a general remark regarding unverifiable purchases or labour charges without specific evidence or rejection of books of account is sustainable.Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be avoided by an agreed addition between the assessee and the Assessing Officer.The procedural propriety and legal effect of an addition made on the basis of a statement or agreement by the assessee's counsel without the assessee's prior approval.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The court held that the addition based on an agreed net profit rate of 5.5% signed by the assessee's counsel was an agreed addition, and ordinarily binds the assessee, especially as penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not initiated on this basis. However, since the counsel was not authorized to make such agreement, the addition could not be sustained without proper verification of the books of account.The court ruled that estimation of net profit without rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) is impermissible, and the Assessing Officer must make a proper examination and point out defects before estimating profit on an ad hoc basis.The court found that additions based on general remarks about unverifiable purchases or labour charges, without pointing out specific defects or rejecting the books, are not sustainable and cannot be upheld.The court emphasized that penalty under section 271(1)(c) may be avoided if the addition is an agreed addition, but only if the agreement is valid and authorized.Given the lack of authorization of the counsel to agree to the addition and the absence of proper verification of accounts, the court set aside the order deleting the addition and remanded the matter for de novo assessment after proper examination and opportunity to the assessee.

RATIONALE:

The court applied the statutory framework under the Income Tax Act, particularly sections 145(3) regarding rejection of books of account, and section 271(1)(c) regarding penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.The court relied on the principle that net profit estimation is permissible only after rejection of books of account or demonstration of their unreliability, and not on mere general observations or without basis.The court recognized that an agreed addition, if validly made, precludes penalty proceedings, but stressed the necessity of proper authorization by the assessee for such agreement, highlighting the limits of representation by counsel.The court noted the absence of any evidence that the assessee authorized the counsel to make a surrender or agreed addition, and the Assessing Officer's failure to verify the accounts or record statements from responsible persons of the assessee, leading to a procedural infirmity.The decision reflects a doctrinal insistence on procedural fairness and proper evidentiary basis before making additions or estimating income, and the necessity of clear authorization for agreements affecting the assessee's rights.

---