AO must direct special audit under section 142(2A) before assessment under section 144 after rejecting audited books

ITAT Panaji allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to AO for fresh assessment. The case involved rejection of audited books under section 145(3) for a precious metal business due to complex nature and high-volume transactions. The tribunal held that after rejecting audited books, AO was duty-bound to direct special audit under section 142(2A) before making assessment under section 144. The ad-hoc determination of taxable income without expert assistance was deemed capricious and irrational, lacking pivotal information and proper notice to the assessee, thus violating section 144 provisions.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

(i) Whether the rejection of the assessee's audited books of account under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was warranted and valid in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(ii) Whether the Assessing Officer was required to frame the assessment under section 144 of the Act once the books were rejected under section 145(3), and whether framing assessment under section 143(3) instead was legally permissible;

(iii) Whether the Assessing Officer was obliged to direct a special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act after rejecting the books under section 145(3) before determining income to the best of judgment under section 144;

(iv) Whether the estimation of income by the Assessing Officer on an ad-hoc basis-specifically, estimation of sales turnover and gross profit percentage-was permissible under section 143(3) of the Act, particularly in the absence of consideration of relevant material and without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

Issue 1: Validity of Rejection of Books under Section 145(3)

The legal framework under section 145(3) empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to reject the books of account where he is not satisfied about their correctness or completeness. The rejection can be triggered if the accounts are substantially incorrect or incomplete. The Tribunal emphasized that stock/inventory records form an integral and substantial part of the books of account in a trading business and their absence or incompleteness can render the accounts unreliable for determining taxable income.

In the present case, the assessee, engaged in trading precious metals and jewellery, maintained books and underwent audit under sections 44AA and 44AB. However, the AO found that purchases from unregistered dealers (URD) lacked adequate details to establish genuineness, and the assessee failed to maintain item-wise stock records for jewellery items and precious metals. This deficiency undermined the ability to quantitatively corroborate purchases and sales with stock movements. Consequently, the AO rejected the books under section 145(3).

The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in Dhondiram Dalichand v. CIT and Bastiram Narayandas v. CIT, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Kachwala Gems v. Jt. CIT, which uphold rejection of books where inventory records are incomplete or missing, making the accounts unreliable. Applying these principles, the Tribunal concluded that the rejection of books was justified and valid in the facts of the case.

Issue 2: Requirement to Frame Assessment under Section 144 after Rejection of Books

Section 145(3) mandates that where books are rejected, the AO shall make the assessment in the manner provided in section 144, which deals with best judgment assessment. The assessee contended that since the books were rejected under section 145(3), the AO was legally bound to frame assessment under section 144, and framing assessment under section 143(3) was impermissible and invalid.

The Tribunal examined section 144, which empowers the AO to make an assessment to the best of his judgment where the assessee fails to comply with certain provisions, including failure to maintain proper books or comply with notices. The provision requires the AO to consider all relevant material gathered and to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard before making such assessment.

The Tribunal clarified that section 145(3) does not itself mandate framing assessment under section 144 but directs that the income be determined in the manner provided under section 144(1). This means the AO must apply the principles of best judgment assessment, including taking into account all relevant material and affording the assessee a hearing. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that framing assessment under section 143(3) after rejection of books was invalid, holding that the AO's power to frame assessment under section 143(3) is not ousted, but the manner of income determination must conform to the requirements of section 144.

Issue 3: Obligation to Direct Special Audit under Section 142(2A)

The Tribunal noted the complex nature of the assessee's business involving precious metals and jewellery, characterized by high-value, low-margin transactions and intricate inventory management. Given the rejection of books on grounds of incompleteness and incorrectness, the AO was under a legal obligation to consider directing a special audit under section 142(2A) to obtain expert assistance in verifying accounts and determining taxable income accurately.

The Tribunal observed that in the present case, the AO did not invoke section 142(2A) despite the complexity and deficiencies in records, which was a procedural lapse. The absence of a special audit contributed to the AO's reliance on arbitrary ad-hoc estimations rather than a reasoned determination based on expert verification.

Issue 4: Permissibility and Validity of Ad-hoc Estimation of Sales and Gross Profit

After rejecting the books, the AO estimated the sales turnover at Rs. 2.5 crores and applied a gross profit rate of 40% to determine taxable income. The Tribunal found that this estimation was made without adequately considering the material on record, including the Tax Audit Report, stock records, bank statements, and purchase and sales registers. Moreover, the AO did not provide the assessee with a show cause notice or opportunity of being heard as required under the proviso to section 144(1).

The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between best judgment assessment under section 144 and arbitrary or capricious estimation. While some estimation is permissible, it must be based on relevant material and judicial considerations, not on guesswork or ad-hoc figures devoid of nexus to the record. The Tribunal cited the Allahabad High Court decision in CIT v. Surjeet Singh Mahesh Kumar to underscore that assessments must not be arbitrary.

Given the complexity of the business and the insufficiency of records, the Tribunal held that the AO's failure to direct a special audit and reliance on ad-hoc estimations without proper procedural safeguards rendered the assessment erroneous and unsustainable.

Conclusions and Directions

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) as valid and justified given the incomplete and incorrect inventory and purchase records. It rejected the assessee's contention that assessment could not be framed under section 143(3) after rejection of books, clarifying that the manner of determination must conform to section 144 principles.

The Tribunal disapproved the AO's ad-hoc estimation of sales and gross profit, holding that it was arbitrary and not based on relevant material, and that the AO failed to comply with procedural requirements of section 144, including providing an opportunity of hearing.

Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for fresh assessment in accordance with law, directing the AO to invoke section 142(2A) for a special audit to assist in the correct determination of income. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard on the audit report before finalizing the assessment.

The appeal was partly allowed on these terms, and the impugned assessment order was set aside for de novo assessment.

Significant holdings include:

"The rejection on such ground however can only be triggered or considered when accounts are found substantially incorrect or incomplete, that is to say incorrectness or incompleteness of substantial accounts shall only form reasonable basis for rejection of books."

"The non-maintenance vis-`a-vis non-production of such records so has to enable the tax authorities to deduce therefrom correct taxable income, in our considered view is capable of construing accounts of the appellant were substantially incomplete & incorrect, thus valid reason for rejection of books u/s 145(3) of the Act."

"The direction of s/s (3) of section 145 of the Act do not in any way direct framing of assessment u/s 144 of the Act but the manner of determination of income to best of judgement on the basis of material already gathered on record but after the assessee is put to show cause notice."

"The assessing officer must proceed on judicial considerations in the light of relevant material that may be brought on record by the assessee. Though such assessment would be based on some element of guess work but should clearly have nexus with material placed on records and should not be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously."

"When such audited results are rejected, then the assessing officer not being an expert of accounts, having regard to complexity of business of the appellant was duty bound to invoke & direct a special audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act."

"The ad-hoc determination of taxable income without such assistance from expert in the present case not only jostled ad-hoc & irrational estimations but led to farfetched determination... inconsonance with the provisions of section 144 of the Act."

---