RITESH KUMAR BOYED,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XIV,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This plea of the Assessee was not accepted by the AO in the course of assessment. He held that the Assessee neither produced documentary evidence to substantiate his contention regarding existence of such practice nor did he maintain any other hand book or record of such transactions nor was such hand book or record found in the course of survey. The AO therefore concluded that the Assessee had in fact done transaction of sale of auto parts and such transactions were not recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the Assessee.

The next question before the AO was how to compute income from such transactions of sale which are not recorded in the books of accounts of the Assessee. The AO found that the Gross profit declared by the Assessee on sales recorded in the books of accounts was 7.53%. However in the statement recorded at the time of Survey the Assessee had in answer to question no.2 stated that the Gross Profit in his business would vary between 15.5% and 53%. The AO therefore applied 17% Gross profit on unrecorded sales of Rs.2,26,293/- and made an addition of Rs.38,470/- to the total income of the Assessee. The AO passed the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.148 of the Act on 30-12-2010.

In reply to the proposal of the CIT stated above, the Assessee submitted that the AO was in possession of the entire documents, records and books of accounts found at the time of survey and only on examination of all those documents the AO has come to a conclusion that an addition of Gross Profit on sales not recorded in the books of accounts could be added as income. The Assessee pointed out that when the AO in exercise of his powers after due enquiry had come to a conclusion, which is a possible conclusion, the CIT cannot exercise of his powers u/s.263 of the Act, just because he does not feel satisfied with the conclusions reached by the AO. In other words it was submitted that jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act cannot be invoked to substitute the view of the AO with that of the CIT. It was submitted that the jurisdiction can be invoked only when two conditions viz., the order in question being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are established. The Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) for the above proposition. The Assessee also pointed out that since unrecorded sales are made throughout the year, unrecorded purchases were also made throughout the year. The profit margin on sale and the realization from sale would be sufficient source of funds out of which the Assessee would have made purchases and hence no separate addition of income on account of unrecorded purchases should be made. The Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of President Industries Ltd. 258 ITR 654 (Guj.) and the ITAT Delhi in the case of India Seed House Vs. ACIT (2001) 69 TTJ

The CIT however did not deal with any of the aforesaid submissions but nevertheless concluded that the Gross Profit adopted by the AO for making addition on account of income from unrecorded sales was proper. He went on further to add that the element of unaccounted purchase ought to have been added by the AO and the order of the AO without going into this aspect has resulted in underassessment of income. The CIT further held that if purchases and sales recorded in the books of accounts are correlated than gross profit rate can be applied and income from unrecorded sales estimated. Since the AO has not verified the above aspect the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT accordingly passed order u/s.263 of the Act setting aside the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after examining the evidence and documents in respect of various issues raised after giving opportunity to the Assessee and in accordance with law.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing it was brought to our notice that in respect of similar addition made in AY 2007-08 on the basis of material found at the time of survey, an assessment was made by the AO by order dated 21.12.2009 adding Gross Profit on unrecorded sales. That order was revised by the CIT in exercise of his powers u/s.263 of the Act by an order dated 23.3.2012. In the said order the CIT gave similar directions as was done in AY 2006-07. The said order was challenged by the Assessee before the ITAT in and this Tribunal by its order dated 16.5.2013 was please to quash the order of the CIT u/s.263 of the Act. The said order of the Tribunal has however been reversed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in G.A.No.3284 of 2013 dated 4.4.2014. The Assessee preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3113 of 2015 by its judgment dated

The point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the CIT rightly invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Assessee and the learned DR. The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated submissions made before the CIT and the learned DR relied on the order of the CIT.

We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. It is seen from the order of the AO that the AO rejected the claim of the Assessee that the unrecorded sales were goods given to customers and the customers may approve or may return such goods. It is only on approval sales are recorded in the books of accounts. Therefore, there were no suppressed sales, whatsoever. This was rejected by the AO and he made an addition on account of gross profit on unrecorded sales at 17% of unrecorded sales. The crucial words in the order of assessment reads as follows: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the G.P. rate on undisclosed sale is calculated @ 17%. And the same is added back to the total income of the assessee. No further expenses are allowed as assessee has already debited huge expenses (Addition Rs.38,470/-)”

It is clear from the above observations of the AO and the observations in para-3 of the order of assessment that he had taken due cognizance of all debit items in the profit and loss account, the tax audit report, the impounded documents, statement recorded during Survey and during assessment proceedings, books and accounts and other documents, bills, vouchers etc.

The CIT has exercised jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that the AO failed to make proper enquiry which he ought to have made before completing the assessment. There is a distinction between "lack of enquiry" and "inadequate

For reasons stated above, we are of the view that the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act was not properly exercised by the CIT as the condition precedent for invoking the same viz., that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is not shown to be present in the present case. We therefore quash the order u/s.263 of the Act and allow the appeal by the Assessee.