2025 (6) TMI 1747 - AT - Income Tax

AO cannot reject audited books under Section 145(3) based solely on low gross profit without identifying specific defects

Aries Designers Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward-1 (1), Kolkata

ITAT Kolkata held that AO's rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) was illegal, as rejection was based solely on low gross profit without ... Rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) - gross profit of the assessee is low - HELD THAT:- It is important to mention here that the books of account of the assessee have been audited by the statutory auditors under the provision of Companies Act and also audited under the provision of Section 44AB of the Act. As we have already stated that in the present case books of account of the assessee has been rejected by the AO only on this ground that the gross profit of the assessee is low during the relevant period as compared to the other years. We do not find anything in the order of AO to specify the defects in the books of account for the purpose of rejecting it. AO has not doubted the sales and purchases made from various parties. The submission of the assessee before the AO regarding the low gross profit in the relevant period are that most of the small and medium business specifically textile trade is almost in the sinking condition due to curtailment in demand increasing overhead expenses, staff reduction in the price realization. It is further important to mention here that no one can dictate a business man how he runs business. Thus, rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act is illegal. Addition as unexplained cash credit - CIT(A) has confirmed the order of AO only on this ground that there was nothing has been submitted - It is pertinent to mention here that assessee had explained that for survival of the business of the company, they have tried to explore source of income from other revenue and borrowings from lender companies were interest free since income earned in future from investment in properties was to be shared with them. The submission of assessee is that since he has filed some documentary evidences before the AO that required to be proper verification by the AO. Keeping in view the above facts and submission made by the assessee this issue requires to be re-verification by the AO, as a result of which, the appeal of the assessee is remanded back to the file of AO for proper verification on the issue of addition and passed a reasoned order after going over the facts. Appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in the appeal are:Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in rejecting the books of account of the assessee under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground of a significant fall in gross profit percentage compared to previous years, and consequently making an addition of Rs. 1,01,80,075/- to the total income by estimating gross profit at an average rate rather than the declared gross profit.Whether the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] were justified in treating an unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 39,67,22,381/- received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit and adding the same to the total income, despite the assessee furnishing documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the loan transaction.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Rejection of Books of Account under Section 145(3) and Addition on Account of Estimated Gross ProfitRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act empowers the AO to reject the method of accounting employed by the assessee if it does not disclose the true income or is not regularly employed. The power to reject books of account must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT held that the AO must bring on record specific defects and clear findings before invoking Section 145(3). The Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that the AO must base rejection on material evidence pointing to incorrectness or incompleteness of the accounts.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The AO observed a significant decline in the gross profit (GP) percentage for the assessment year 2017-18 (0.1462%) compared to previous years (0.3417% in 2016, 0.3985% in 2015, and 1.4951% in 2014). The turnover had increased substantially (about 3.5 to 5 times compared to previous years). Based on this, the AO rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) and computed income by applying an average GP rate of 0.75% (derived from the last three years) to the turnover, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,01,80,075/-.The Tribunal noted that while a fall in GP rate may justify invoking Section 145(3), it is not a sufficient condition by itself. The AO must analyze other parameters and point out specific defects in the books of account. The mere difference in GP percentage compared to earlier years or other assessees in similar business is inadequate. The AO did not identify any specific irregularities such as inflated purchases, unrecorded sales, or manipulation of stock valuation. The AO also did not doubt the sales and purchases from various parties, nor did he point out any defects in the books.The assessee explained the low GP rate by adverse market conditions, including recession and stiff competition in the textile trade, leading to reduced demand, increased overheads, and price pressures. The Tribunal emphasized that business fluctuations and market conditions cannot be dictated by the tax authorities.Key Evidence and Findings:The assessee's books of account were audited under the Companies Act and Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The AO relied on a chart extracted from the company's annual report showing sales, purchases, and GP percentages over four years. The Tribunal found no material to show mala fide or incompleteness in the accounts. The AO's rejection was solely based on the low GP rate without specifying defects.Application of Law to Facts:The Tribunal applied the legal principle that rejection of books under Section 145(3) requires clear findings and specific defects. Since the AO failed to demonstrate any such defects and the assessee's explanation for low GP was plausible and supported by audited accounts, the rejection was held to be illegal.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The revenue relied on the fall in GP rate and turnover increase to justify rejection and addition. The assessee countered with market realities and documentary evidence of audited accounts. The Tribunal favored the latter, emphasizing the need for material evidence and reasoned findings by the AO.Conclusions:The addition of Rs. 1,01,80,075/- on account of estimated gross profit was deleted, and the rejection of books under Section 145(3) was held illegal.Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 39,67,22,381/- as Unexplained Cash Credit on Account of Unsecured LoanRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, unexplained cash credits can be added to income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the credit. The explanation must be supported by credible evidence such as ledger confirmations, bank statements, audited accounts of the lender, and other relevant documents.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The AO treated the unsecured loan of Rs. 39,67,22,381/- received by the assessee in the previous year 2016-17 as unexplained cash credit, adding it to income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, stating that the assessee had not submitted any evidence.The assessee contended that the loan was interest-free and taken from two companies engaged in funding and investment activities (including NBFC), supported by extensive documentary evidence:Ledger confirmations from the lender companies.Annual reports and audited financial statements of the lender companies.Income tax return acknowledgments of the lender companies.Bank statements evidencing transactions between the parties.Details of the Board of Directors of the lender companies.The assessee explained that the borrowing was to sustain the business during adverse conditions and that the loan was interest-free because future income from investments was to be shared with the lenders.The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly verified the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the issue required further verification and a reasoned order by the AO after considering the documents and facts.Key Evidence and Findings:The documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was prima facie sufficient to establish the genuineness of the loan transaction. The AO failed to point out any defect or lacuna in the documents. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper verification rather than outright rejection.Application of Law to Facts:Given the documentary evidence and explanation, the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained without proper scrutiny. The matter was remanded for fresh verification and a reasoned order.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The revenue supported the addition on the ground of unexplained credit. The assessee relied on documentary proof and explanation of business exigencies. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission for further verification.Conclusions:The addition of Rs. 39,67,22,381/- was set aside and the matter remanded to the AO for fresh verification and a reasoned decision.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'There is no dispute that fall in gross profit rate definitely provides a ground to AO for invocation of provision of Section 145(3) of the Act but yet it is not a sufficient condition. The AO is required to analysis various other parameters which have the facts on the gross profit rate of the assessee for the relevant period, before drawing any conclusion on the merit of such claim.''The rejection books of account simply on lower gross profit rate in comparison to earlier years or with other the assessee placed in similar stance would not suffice and will not stand the test of the appeal. The power vested with the AO u/s 145(3) has to be exercised judiciously not arbitrarily.''The books of account of the assessee has been rejected by the AO only on this ground that the gross profit of the assessee is low during the relevant period as compared to the other years. We do not find anything in the order of AO to specify the defects in the books of account for the purpose of rejecting it.''No one can dictate a business man how he runs business.''The issue requires to be re-verification by the AO, as a result of which, the appeal of the assessee is remanded back to the file of AO for proper verification on the issue of addition of Rs. 39,67,22,381/- and passed a reasoned order after going over the facts.'Core principles established include that the AO's power under Section 145(3) must be exercised on the basis of specific findings and material and not merely on a decline in gross profit percentage; and that additions under Section 68 require proper verification of documentary evidence before being confirmed.Final determinations:The rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) and the consequent addition of Rs. 1,01,80,075/- were held illegal and deleted.The addition of Rs. 39,67,22,381/- as unexplained cash credit was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh verification and a reasoned order.