2003 (11) TMI 285 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules against Revenue's undisclosed income addition, restricts additional GP rate.

STEEL INDUSTRIES OF INDIA. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 98,13,018 addition as undisclosed income. The assessee's appeal ... Undisclosed investments Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 7,22,238 as undisclosed premium.2. Deletion of Rs. 98,13,018 as undisclosed income.3. Estimation of Gross Profit (GP) rate.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Rs. 7,22,238 as Undisclosed Premium:The assessee's appeal contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,22,238 as undisclosed premium. The AO had initially determined that the assessee earned additional profit of 5% on transactions over and above the declared 3%, leading to the addition. This was based on the AO's finding that the transactions with three parties were not genuine, and the goods were sold in the open market. The CIT(A) retained the addition but reduced the extra profit rate to 5% instead of the AO's 7%.2. Deletion of Rs. 98,13,018 as Undisclosed Income:The Revenue's appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 98,13,018, arguing that the addition was based on substantial evidence, including statements and affidavits from alleged hawala givers. The AO had concluded that the proceeds received from three firms were the assessee's undisclosed money. However, the CIT(A) found that the addition was based on 'surmises, conjectures, and suspicions' and deleted it. The CIT(A) noted that the purchases were genuine and recorded in the books, and the goods were sold, albeit the exact buyers were disputed.3. Estimation of Gross Profit (GP) Rate:The primary issue was the estimation of the GP rate. The assessee argued that similar transactions with five other parties, where a 3% service charge was accepted by the Department, should apply here. The CIT(A) had accepted the fact of sales but retained an additional GP rate of 5% instead of the AO's 7%. The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of a 10-12% premium was unsubstantiated and based on general assumptions. The Tribunal directed a more reasonable view, reducing the additional GP rate to 2.5% over the declared 3%.Comprehensive Analysis:Addition of Rs. 7,22,238 as Undisclosed Premium:The Tribunal noted that the AO had estimated an additional profit of 5% on transactions over the declared 3%, based on the belief that the transactions with three parties were not genuine. The CIT(A) retained the addition but reduced the extra profit rate to 5%. The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown comparable cases with a 3% profit rate, which the Department accepted. The Tribunal directed that the additional GP rate should be restricted to 2.5% instead of 5%, considering the entirety of the facts.Deletion of Rs. 98,13,018 as Undisclosed Income:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 98,13,018 addition, agreeing that it was based on 'surmises, conjectures, and suspicions.' The Tribunal highlighted that the purchases were genuine and recorded in the books, and the sales were also accepted, though the exact buyers were disputed. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's acceptance of the purchases and the fact of sales meant the proceeds could not be treated as the assessee's undisclosed income.Estimation of Gross Profit (GP) Rate:The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of a 10-12% premium was unsubstantiated and based on general assumptions. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that similar transactions with a 3% GP rate were accepted by the Department. The Tribunal directed a reduction in the additional GP rate to 2.5% over the declared 3%, considering the comparable cases and the average GP rate in the assessee's steel trading business.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 98,13,018 addition. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing that the additional GP rate be restricted to 2.5% instead of 5%. The Tribunal emphasized the need for reasonable and substantiated estimations and rejected additions based on mere assumptions and suspicions.