2025 (7) TMI 1835 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Upholds 1% Net Profit Restriction on Undisclosed Turnover Under Transfer Pricing Rules

Varadharajaperumal Pradeepkumar Versus The ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-5 (1), Chennai.

Varadharajaperumal Pradeepkumar Versus The ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-5 (1), Chennai. - TMI ISSUES: Whether the delay in filing appeals can be excused based on the explanation provided.Whether the estimation of income on 'undisclosed turnover' at 2% net profit by the Assessing Officer (AO) is justified.Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) was justified in reducing the net profit estimation from 2% to 1% on the 'undisclosed turnover'.Whether the net profit estimation on undisclosed turnover should be further reduced below 1% based on the nature of business and duplicate bank entries.Whether identical issues for subsequent assessment years can be decided on the basis of the lead case decision. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The delay of 112 days in filing the appeals is excused as the assessee provided sufficient explanation, and the appeals are heard on merits.The AO's estimation of net profit at 2% on the undisclosed turnover is not upheld in full; it is considered excessive given the facts and nature of business.The CIT(A) rightly restricted the net profit estimation to 1% on the undisclosed turnover of Rs. 1,34,84,654/-, providing partial relief to the assessee by reducing the AO's estimate.The plea to reduce the net profit estimation further to 0.5% or 0.6% is rejected due to lack of comparable evidence or computation supporting such reduction; the estimation at 1% is upheld as reasonable.The appeals for the subsequent assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 are dismissed on the same reasoning as the lead case for AY 2013-14. RATIONALE: The statutory framework involves notices issued under sections 148 and 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening assessment and obtaining bank information, respectively.The AO's estimation is based on the difference between total bank credits and declared sales turnover, applying a profit margin of 2% on the undisclosed turnover to compute additional income.The CIT(A) considered the assessee's submissions regarding duplicate bank entries and the nature of business (cell-phone recharge with low margins) but found no documentary evidence or computation to substantiate a profit margin lower than 1%.The court applied the principle that estimation of income must be reasonable and supported by evidence; in absence of such evidence, the appellate authority's discretion to reduce the AO's estimation is respected but not to the extent of the assessee's plea without proof.The decision reflects no doctrinal shift but follows established precedent that estimation of income on undisclosed turnover should be fair and based on material on record, and appeals involving similar facts for subsequent years can be disposed of by following the lead case.