2025 (6) TMI 1769 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - Unexplained investment - CIT(A) determining the income of Gross Profit at the rate of 6% - assessee had himself admitted the net profit to be Rs.70 lacs in his statement but did not offer the said unaccounted income for the relevant assessment year for tax - HELD THAT - AO has held that Dipak Shah being the partner of the firm has in his statement has accepted that Rs.69, 10, 285/- was unaccounted sale for the relevant assessment year but from the return filed by the assessee it cannot be verified whether the assessee has offered the amount of Rs.69, 10, 285/- to tax or not. The assessee in this regard is silent hence the ld. AO treated the same amount as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Statement of shri Dipak Shah recorded u/s 133A of the Act reveals thus it is unaccounted sale and does not enter in the books of account as on date. It is further pertinent to mention here that there is no excess stock and all the stock found at the time of survey was related to the books of accounts. The assessee has clearly stated that the sale has been duly recorded in the audited books of accounts and same is included in the total turnover and duly offered for taxation in the return of income. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

- Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained investment/unaccounted sales amounting to Rs. 69,10,285/- is justified.

- Whether the AO was correct in treating the entire amount as unexplained investment without applying the gross profit ratio to estimate the taxable income arising from the unaccounted sales.

- Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) was justified in partially allowing the appeal by applying a gross profit (GP) ratio of 6% on the unaccounted sales and deleting the balance amount from the addition.

- The correctness and applicability of precedents cited by the assessee regarding treatment of unaccounted sales and application of GP ratio for estimating income.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of addition under section 69 of the Income-tax Act on account of unexplained investment/unaccounted sales

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69 of the Income-tax Act empowers the AO to make additions to the income of an assessee where investments or unexplained sums are found and the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of such investments or sums. The burden lies on the assessee to explain the nature and source of the amount. Precedents such as the Gujarat High Court decision in PCIT-2 vs. Rameswar Textile Mills Ltd and ITAT Rajkot in ACIT vs. Com Granito Pvt. Ltd. establish that where unaccounted sales are discovered, the AO can estimate income by applying the gross profit ratio to such sales.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO relied on the statement of Shri Dipak Shah, a partner of the firm, recorded under section 133A, which admitted that Rs. 69,10,285/- represented unaccounted sales not entered in the books at the time of survey. The AO observed that the assessee had not offered this amount for taxation and treated it as unexplained investment under section 69, making the addition accordingly. However, the AO did not apply the gross profit ratio to estimate taxable income from these unaccounted sales.

Key evidence and findings: The key evidence was the statement of Shri Dipak Shah acknowledging unaccounted sales and the survey team's finding of shortage of stock valuing Rs. 69,10,285/-. The assessee contended that these sales were subsequently recorded in the books and included in the audited accounts and return of income.

Application of law to facts: The AO's approach was to treat the entire amount as unexplained investment without estimating income by applying the GP ratio, which is contrary to the established principle that unaccounted sales should be subjected to GP ratio to estimate taxable income.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the entire amount should be added as unexplained investment since the assessee admitted the net profit of Rs. 70 lacs but did not offer this unaccounted income for tax. The assessee argued that the unaccounted sales were subsequently recorded and included in the turnover and return of income and that the AO ignored this fact. The assessee also relied on precedents supporting the application of GP ratio to unaccounted sales rather than treating the entire amount as unexplained investment.

Conclusions: The AO's addition was not entirely justified as the entire amount could not be treated as unexplained investment without estimating taxable income by applying the GP ratio.

Issue 2: Application of gross profit ratio on unaccounted sales for estimation of income

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle that gross profit ratio should be applied to unaccounted sales to estimate income is well established in judicial decisions, including the Gujarat High Court's ruling in PCIT-2 vs. Rameswar Textile Mills Ltd and the ITAT Rajkot decision in ACIT vs. Com Granito Pvt. Ltd. This method ensures a fair estimation of income rather than arbitrary addition of the entire amount.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) applied a gross profit ratio of 6% on the unaccounted sales of Rs. 69,10,285/- to estimate the taxable income at Rs. 4,14,617/-. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete Rs. 64,95,668/- (the balance amount after deducting the estimated income) from the addition. The CIT(A) reasoned that since the unaccounted sales were subsequently recorded in the books and there was no excess stock found, the addition should be limited to the estimated profit margin only.

Key evidence and findings: The statement of Shri Dipak Shah acknowledged that the unaccounted sales were not recorded at the time of survey but were subsequently entered in the books. The survey team found no excess stock, confirming that the stock was related to the books of accounts. The assessee's audited accounts and return of income included these sales. The CIT(A) relied on these facts along with judicial precedents to apply the GP ratio.

Application of law to facts: Applying the GP ratio to the unaccounted sales to estimate income aligns with the established judicial principle and reflects the actual profit element attributable to the unaccounted sales rather than taxing the entire amount as unexplained investment.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the entire amount should be added, pointing to the assessee's admission of net profit and non-disclosure of income. The assessee countered that the unaccounted sales were recorded post-survey and included in the return, supported by precedents. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's arguments and judicial precedents, applying the GP ratio accordingly.

Conclusions: The application of a 6% GP ratio by the CIT(A) to estimate taxable income from unaccounted sales was appropriate and justified.

Issue 3: Validity of CIT(A)'s order and dismissal of Revenue's appeal

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reviewed the assessment order, the CIT(A)'s order, and the submissions of both parties. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied the legal principles by estimating income at 6% of the unaccounted sales and deleting the balance amount from addition. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not verify whether the amount was offered to tax, and the assessee's explanation that the sales were recorded in the books post-survey was credible. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was free from infirmity.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal relied on the statement of Shri Dipak Shah, the survey findings, the assessee's audited accounts, and the CIT(A)'s reasoning supported by judicial precedents.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the established legal framework and found the CIT(A)'s order consistent with law and facts.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that the entire amount should be added as unexplained investment and upheld the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of the appeal.

Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Court held that where unaccounted sales are discovered during survey or assessment, the AO must apply the gross profit ratio to such sales to estimate the taxable income rather than adding the entire amount as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act.

- The Court observed: "For the unaccounted sale a GP ratio is to be applied for estimating the profit. Reliance may be placed on the judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of 'PCIT-2 vs. Rameswar Textile Mills Ltd' and 'ACIT vs. com granito Pvt. Ltd.' In which the Hon'ble High Court and ITAT Rajkot held that for unaccounted sales GP ratio is to be applied."

- The Court concluded that the AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 69,10,285/- in entirety without applying the GP ratio and that the CIT(A) rightly applied a GP ratio of 6%, estimating income at Rs. 4,14,617/- and deleting the balance amount.

- The Court held that the assessee's explanation that the unaccounted sales were subsequently recorded in the books of accounts and included in the return of income was credible and supported by evidence, negating the AO's addition in full.

- The final determination was to dismiss the Revenue's appeal and uphold the CIT(A)'s order allowing the appeal partly in favor of the assessee.