M/S COTTON CARE EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 490/CHANDI/2013Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 October 2018AY 2006-076 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found coherence issues and lack of direct incriminating evidence in the Assessing Officer's order. It agreed to treat the case as one of rejection of books of account and estimate the GP rate at par with the preceding year.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the assessment order, citing defects in the Assessing Officer's calculations and reasoning. The Assessing Officer made additions based on alleged undervaluation of sales and rejected cloth, without clear correlation to unaccounted purchases.

What were the issues?

The primary issues revolved around the validity of additions made by the Assessing Officer due to alleged undervaluation of sales and rejected cloth, and the method of calculation adopted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(2A),Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.2.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].

2.

The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal :- 1. That the challenge is being made to the completion of assessment u/s 143(3) r/w section 142(2A) being beyond the period of limitation u/s 153.

2.

That the action for sustaining the addition for Rs. 7623/- is being challenged on fact and law.

3.

That the action for sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,50,000/- and depreciation thereon for Rs. 46,164/- is being challenged on facts and law and quantum of addition too is disputed.

ITA No. 490/Chd/2013- M/s Cotton Care Exports Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana 2

4.

That the action for sustaining the addition for Rs. 3,23,65,766/- towards purchases is being challenged on fact and law and the quantum of addition too is disputed.

5.

That the action for sustaining the addition for Rs. 72,49,291/- for fabrication charges is being challenged on fact and law and the challenge is being made for erroneous telescoping for wages of Rs. 27,55,716/- which is being contested.

6.

That the action for sustaining the disallowance for wages of Rs. 27,55,716/- is being challenged on fact and law and the quantum of disallowance is disputed too.

7.

That the action for disallowance of imported consumable stores for Rs. 1,44,53,117/- is being challenged on fact and law and the quantum of disallowance is disputed too.

8.

That the appellant craves permission to elucidate, add, amend, delete any ground of appeal at the time of appeal

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention

to the assessment order and pointed out various defects in the calculation

as well as the analogy and reasoning adopted by the Assessing officer for

making the impugned additions. The Ld. counsel while taking us through

various pages of the assessment order, has submitted that the Assessing

officer in this case had started pointing out certain unaccounted purchases

whereas ultimately he had made additions in respect of undervaluation of

the sales and rejected the cloth. He pointed out that there was no co-

relation between the alleged unaccounted purchases and additions made on

account of alleged under valuation of sales of rejected cloth. The Ld.

Counsel has also demonstrated that while making additions, the Assessing

ITA No. 490/Chd/2013- M/s Cotton Care Exports Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana 3

officer did not consider the sale and manufacturing of cloth. He

demonstrated that the average purchase price of the cloth at Rs. 97 per kg

and average sale price of entire cloth comes to Rs. 193 per kg and that

sufficient profits have been returned by the assessee. Further, the Ld.

Counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the various additions,

some on account of excess claim of depreciation, some on account of

excess claim of fabrication charges, wages and on account of excess import

of consumables and certain additions on account of unaccounted expenses

which the assessee claimed to have been made by Mr Pawan Modgill,

Director of the company out of his personal account and not related to the

company. It was pointed out that the additions made was many more times

the returned income, being Rs. 5,66,26,517/- as against a meager returned

income of Rs. 26,26,230/- and further that the G.P. upto the date of survey

thus increased to 38.55% of sales as against 8.81% shown by the assessee

4.

After going through the entire order, we find that there was no

coherence and many of the additions have been made by way of assuming

and calculating the costs expenditure incurred by the assessee in

previous year as compared to the year under consideration. Further, no

direct incriminating evidence during the survey was found against the

assessee. Interestingly, the Assessing officer though had pointed out about

the excess claim of expenditure, bogus purchases etc. recorded in the

books of account but he goes on making the additions by individually

calculating such disallowances by comparing the same to the previous year

expenses etc. In our view, instead of pointing out so many mistakes in

making so many calculations, if the Assessing officer was of the view that

the assessee had prepared the wrong accounts, the proper course in our

ITA No. 490/Chd/2013- M/s Cotton Care Exports Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana 4

view in that event was to reject the books of account and estimate the

additions. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has pointed out

many mistakes in the method /calculation adopted by the Assessing officer

of which the Ld. DR even could not rebut.

5.

Though the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contested each and

every addition stating that there was no basis with the Assessing officer

to made the said calculation on estimation basis and made the impugned

additions, yet, he has submitted that even after rejecting the books of

account, certain percentage of profits be estimated. He has further pointed

out that in last year i.e. in the previous assessment year, the total turnover

of the assessee was of Rs. 8.024 crores and GP rate was 17.23 % without

rejecting of the books of account as accepted by the Assessing officer

during the scrutiny assessment proceedings carried out u/s 143(3) of the

Act. He has further submitted that in the year under consideration, the

turnover of the assessee has been substantially increased to Rs. 13.57 cores

and, whereas, the assessee has returned GP rate of 16.21 %. He,

therefore, has submitted that considering the above facts, even otherwise

no addition is warranted in this case as it is a common phenomenon that

the GP taken further substantially gets increased as there are chances

of decrease in GP rate also but overall profits are increased. However, he

has further submitted that admitting to the merits of any addition made by

the Assessing officer, the assessee will be satisfied if after rejection of

books of account, the GP rate is estimated as per the last year GP rate

irrespective of the fact that the turnover of the assessee has substantially

increased in the year under consideration.

ITA No. 490/Chd/2013- M/s Cotton Care Exports Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana 5

6.

We have heard the Ld. DR also. As noted above, there are many

discrepancies in the order of the Assessing officer to which the Ld. DR

could not satisfactorily explain. He, however, has relied on the orders of

the lower authorities.

7.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and as

also been agreed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee we treat it as a case

of rejection of books of account and estimate the GP rate for the year

under consideration as at par with the GP rate for the immediate preceding

year @ 17.23% irrespective of the fact that the turnover of the assessee

for the year under consideration has substantially increased. We make it

clear that since the aforesaid addition have been agreed to by the assessee;

the assessee will not be entitled to deny the validity of the aforesaid

additions agreed to by the assessee.

In view of the this, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly

allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17.10.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नपूणा� गु�ता / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member Dated : 17.10.2018 “आर.के.” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

ITA No. 490/Chd/2013- M/s Cotton Care Exports Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana 6

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 142(2A)

All 676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(2A) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →