Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 559 - HC - Income TaxRejection of books of accounts - G.P. determination - Held that:- Though the petitioner at the relevant time was in the first year of his business but his turn over was far more than the turnover of other players in the market, as is evident from the details mentioned in the order of the Assessing Officer. The turnover of the appellant was ₹ 1,16,38,55,100/-. The Assessing Officer has compared gross profit and net profit of other concerns in the same business and for that very financial year found that assessee had shown gross profit much lower in comparison to average gross profit of other six business concerns engaged in the business of trading in Mentha Oil. Accordingly, he arrived at the conclusion that profit returned by the appellant is on the lower side and after rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act, 1961, he applied the gross profit rate of 0.65% on total turnover of ₹ 1,16,38,55,100/- based on the average gross profit rate arrived at on the profit return by other concerns, which comes to ₹ 75,65,058/-. Accordingly the difference in the profit return and the one assessed which comes to ₹ 66,54,087/- was added to the income of the appellant. It is this assessment which was not accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereas the Tribunal has concurred with the arguments of Departmental Representative and the finding of the Assessing Officer and rejected the view of the Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground that Menthol is not a restricted item which could be sold only to a particular buyer. It was an open commodity and the Assessing Officer has rightly assessed the income and profit of the appellant based on comparison of profit of other concerns from the same business and in the same financial year. Even though, the reasoning given by the Tribunal is not very detailed yet as it has concurred with the reasoning of the Assessing Officer, therefore, on a perusal of comparative chart disclosing the rates of profit of others engaged in the same business in the same financial year, we do not find any error having been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned judgment affirming the order of Assessing Officer which may be said to give rise to a substantial question of law in the matter requiring our interference
|