2025 (10) TMI 568 - AT - Income Tax

Tax authority's 8% net profit estimate for commission agent reduced to 3%; verify if commission already taxed and delete balance

Narasingamurthy Elangovan Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Villupuram.

ITAT CHENNAI - AT held that where the assessee was a commission agent and no profit-and-loss account was produced, the AO's estimation of net profit at 8% ... Unexplained income - commission/brokerage income u/s 194H - net profit determined at 8% of the total amount credited - HELD THAT:- We note that the assessee is a commission agent, which was also accepted by the Department in the assessment order for the AY 2018-19. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the AO estimated the net profit at 8% of the total amount credited, since the assessee has not submitted profit and loss account to ascertain the income from trading activity of the assessee and from commission activity. Estimation of 8% of total amount credited, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), appears to be in higher side and there is no scope for earning commission at 8%. Thus, in the interest of natural justice, we hold that estimation of 3% of total amount credited would be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to estimate the net profit at 3% of total amount credited and delete the balance amount. Commission/brokerage income - As we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to verify as to whether the said amount has already been offered for tax and if so, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. We find no reason to interfere with the above finding of the ld. CIT(A). ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether, in the absence of profit and loss accounts and classification of credits, the Assessing Officer may treat total bank credits as total turnover and estimate income by applying a percentage net profit rate (section 148 context). 2. Whether the estimation of net profit at 8% of total credits is reasonable for an assessee who is a commission agent dealing in agricultural produce, or whether a different estimation percentage should be applied. 3. Whether a specific commission/brokerage receipt (Rs.4,530) can be treated as unexplained income under the Act where its taxation status in the return prompted by the section 148 notice is not established. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Legality of treating total bank credits as total turnover and estimating income where books/PL are not produced Legal framework: Assessment under a reopened scrutiny (notice under section 148) permits the Assessing Officer to assess income; where books or profit & loss accounts are not furnished, the Assessing Officer may estimate income based on materials available, invoking general powers to determine income. Precedent Treatment: The order under review applies standard assessment practice of estimating income in absence of accounts; no distinct precedent was cited or overruled in the text. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that in absence of classification of receipts and profit and loss account, the Assessing Officer was entitled to make an estimation. However, the Tribunal examined whether the specific estimation method (treating aggregate bank credits as turnover) and the rate applied were reasonable for the occupational facts (commission agent dealing in market committee transactions). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - It is legitimate for the Revenue to estimate income where no accounts are produced, but the estimation must be reasonable and related to the assessee's true nature of receipts. Conclusion: The principle of allowing estimation in absence of books is affirmed, subject to reasonableness and occupational relevance of the percentage applied (see Issue 2 for adjustment). Issue 2 - Reasonableness of applying 8% net profit on total bank credits for a commission agent; appropriate rate Legal framework: Estimation of income requires a reasonable basis correlated to the assessee's business character; the rate applied must reflect the likely profit in the relevant trade/occupation and available material (including market committee confirmations and transaction particulars). Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal derived guidance from the assessment record and past departmental acceptance of the assessee's status as a commission agent (as noted in a subsequent assessment order), treating occupational characterization as material for fixing an estimation percentage. No authority was expressly followed or distinguished, but established administrative practice of reducing arbitrary estimates is applied. Interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer treated entire credits (Rs.2,35,66,460) as turnover and applied 8% net profit. The Tribunal found this arbitrary and inconsistent with the assessee's role as a commission agent whose commission income is a small fraction of transaction values. The assessee produced a confirmation from the Market Committee and a detailed breakup of purchases showing that commission earned is 1% of total purchases. On that factual matrix, the Tribunal held that 8% profit on gross credits is excessive and not reflective of commission-agent operations. In the interest of natural justice and fairness, the Tribunal reduced the estimation to 3% of total credits as a fair and reasonable estimate of net profit. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An estimation must reflect the nature of the receipts; where the assessee's role and supporting confirmations indicate lower margins (commission agent), a high arbitrary percentage (8%) is not sustainable and may be reduced. Obiter - The specific choice of 3% is a fact-based determination applicable to the record before the Tribunal but indicates a general approach to align estimation percentage with occupational realities. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed reduction of the estimated net profit from 8% to 3% of total bank credits and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the balance addition, holding 3% to be fair and reasonable for the given facts. Issue 3 - Treatment of specific commission/brokerage receipt (Rs.4,530) as unexplained income Legal framework: When a specific receipt is denied explanation, the Assessing Officer may treat it as unexplained income; however, if it has been offered to tax in the return filed in response to the section 148 notice, it should not be added. Precedent Treatment: The Commissioner (Appeals) directed verification whether the specific brokerage was offered to tax and to delete the addition if so; the Tribunal agreed with that approach. No new precedent was established or overruled. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals)'s direction reasonable - the addition of Rs.4,530 should stand only if the amount has not been offered to tax in the return filed after the reopening notice. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the return for offer of that amount. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Specific unexplained receipts should be disallowed only after verifying whether they have been offered to tax; administrative verification suffices to avoid double taxation or erroneous addition. Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the appellate direction: the Assessing Officer shall verify the tax treatment of Rs.4,530 in the return filed pursuant to section 148 and delete the addition if the amount has been offered to tax. Cross-References and Final Disposition 1. Issues 1 and 2 are interrelated: while estimation in absence of accounts is permissible (Issue 1), the percentage applied must be occupation-consistent (Issue 2); therefore the Tribunal reduced the percentage from 8% to 3% on the facts before it. 2. Issue 3 is procedural and distinct: the Tribunal upheld the appellate direction to verify taxation of the specific brokerage receipt and to delete any addition if already offered in the return. 3. Outcome: Appeal partly allowed - estimation reduced and specific addition subject to verification as above.