2020 (7) TMI 628 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - assessable income was arrived by applying a percentage rate on unaccounted turnover - HELD THAT - This Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mohammed Dhurabudeen 2007 (7) TMI 635 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein it was held that when the income of the assessee was computed by applying GP rate and no deduction was allowed in regard to purchases of the assessee there was no need to look into the provisions of Section 40A(3) and Rule 60DD(j) of the Relevant Rules that no disallowance could have been made in view of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act read with Rule 60DD(j) of the Relevant Rules as no deduction was allowed and claimed by the assessee in respect of purchases and that when the GP rate was applied that would take care of everything and there was no need for the Assessing Officer to make scrutiny of the amount incurred on the purchases by the assessee. CIT(A) considered the facts applied the law in the aforementioned decision and partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. This order has been confirmed by the Tribunal after examining the facts. No substantial question of law

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act regarding disallowance on purchase of steel ingots.
2. Application of GP rate in computing income and its impact on deduction under Section 40A(3).
3. Adjudication on the correctness of the Tribunal's decision regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3).

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act regarding disallowance on purchase of steel ingots

The judgment involves an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2002-03. The primary issue revolves around the disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act concerning the purchase of steel ingots from various persons. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) based on the precedent set in the case of CIT Vs. Mohammed Dhurabudeen. It was established that when the income of the assessee was computed using the Gross Profit (GP) rate and no deduction was allowed for the purchases, Section 40A(3) did not need to be invoked. The Tribunal concluded that the application of the GP rate sufficed to address the matter, and no further scrutiny of the purchase amount was necessary.

Issue 2: Application of GP rate in computing income and its impact on deduction under Section 40A(3)

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) partially allowed the appeal filed by the assessee after considering the facts and applying the law as per the aforementioned precedent. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the facts, confirmed the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the GP rate application adequately addressed the situation without the need for invoking Section 40A(3) or Rule 60DD(j) of the Relevant Rules. It was concluded that since no deduction was claimed or allowed in respect of purchases, the GP rate computation was deemed sufficient to cover all aspects, rendering further disallowance unnecessary.

Issue 3: Adjudication on the correctness of the Tribunal's decision regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3)

The High Court, after analyzing the matter comprehensively, found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. The Tribunal's order was deemed to have thoroughly examined the facts and correctly applied the law based on the precedent cited. Consequently, the High Court held that the Tribunal's decision did not warrant any interference, leading to the dismissal of the tax case appeal. The judgment concluded that the entire issue had been adequately addressed, and no costs were imposed as no substantial question of law necessitated further deliberation.

In summary, the judgment focused on the interpretation and application of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act in the context of disallowance on specific purchases. It highlighted the significance of the GP rate computation in determining the assessable income and the impact of not claiming deductions on the applicability of Section 40A(3). The decision ultimately upheld the Tribunal's ruling, emphasizing that the existing legal framework adequately addressed the situation, thereby dismissing the appeal.