2014 (4) TMI 1141 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - The direction issued by the C.I.T. to pass a fresh assessment order after examining the evidence and documents is in the backdrop of the fact that pursuant to the notice issued under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act and subsequent proceedings thereunder it transpired that the assessee had omitted to disclose sale of a sum of Rs. 1, 52, 83, 632/-. The assessing officer taxed the gross profit at the rate of 9.33 per cent. The C.I.T. was of the opinion that the rate of gross profit could not have been less than 17 per cent. The learned Tribunal in its judgement held that the purchases and the closing stock remained constant. If that is so the sum of Rs. 1, 52, 83, 632/- is clearly to be added to the profits of the assessee. Mr. Bharadwaj submitted that it would appear from the evidence that there were additional purchases. The additional purchases have been ruled out by the Tribunal in its order under challenge where it was held ..on the accepted purchases and the closing stock remaining constant . In case any further scrutiny of the evidence is required as submitted by Mr. Bharadwaj the learned Tribunal was not justified in tinkering with the order of the C.I.T. passed under Section 263 of the I.T. Act. We are as such of the opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee. The order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside and the order of the C.I.T. passed under Section 263 of the I.T. Act is restored.

Issues:
1. Challenge to Tribunal's decision allowing the appeal against C.I.T.'s order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Discrepancy in gross profit rate determination.
3. Omission of disclosing sales amount.
4. Disagreement on gross profit rate between C.I.T. and assessing officer.
5. Tribunal's decision on additional purchases and closing stock.

1. Challenge to Tribunal's decision:
The High Court addressed the challenge to the Tribunal's decision that allowed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (C.I.T.) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The C.I.T. had set aside the assessment order and directed a fresh assessment after finding it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Tribunal's decision was based on the contention that the C.I.T. lacked jurisdiction as the assessment was not based on estimating but on actual figures considered, citing the case law of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs CIT. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision and set it aside, restoring the C.I.T.'s order.

2. Discrepancy in gross profit rate determination:
The disagreement between the C.I.T. and the assessing officer arose due to a variance in the gross profit rate. The C.I.T. believed the rate should have been higher, while the assessing officer had taxed it at a lower rate. The Tribunal's decision, which favored the assessee, was based on the premise that the purchases and closing stock remained constant, leading to the conclusion that a specific sum needed to be added to the assessee's profits. The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in its decision and restored the C.I.T.'s order, emphasizing that the gross profit rate determination was incorrect.

3. Omission of disclosing sales amount:
The assessing officer discovered that the assessee had omitted to disclose a significant sum from the sales amount. This omission led to further scrutiny, with the C.I.T. believing that the gross profit rate should have been higher than initially assessed. The High Court's decision to restore the C.I.T.'s order was influenced by this omission and the need for a more accurate assessment of the profits.

4. Disagreement on gross profit rate:
The core of the dispute lay in the disparity between the gross profit rate determined by the assessing officer and the C.I.T. The C.I.T. contended that the rate should have been higher, while the assessing officer had set it at a lower percentage. This discrepancy formed the basis for the C.I.T.'s order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which was later challenged and overturned by the Tribunal, only to be reinstated by the High Court.

5. Tribunal's decision on additional purchases and closing stock:
The Tribunal's decision, which favored the assessee, was based on the premise that there were no additional purchases and the closing stock remained constant. However, the High Court found fault with this reasoning, stating that if the sum omitted from the sales amount was considered, it should be added to the profits. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in its decision and restored the C.I.T.'s order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

← Previous Next →