Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Vs Symphony Comfort System Ltd (Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : Tax Appeal No. 1501 of 2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 01/10/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (3793) Gujarat High Court (319)

The AO merely made comparative study of the expenses for the year under consideration with the preceding assessment year and found that expenses incurred in the preceding assessment year were 2.89% on turnover but in the assessment year under appeal it was 4.78% on the turnover. The expenses were, therefore, found excessive without pointing out as to which of the expenses incurred by the assessee was not connected with the business activity of the assessee. The AO has not pointed out which of the expenditure were not admissible in law. In the absence of any pointing out inadmissible expenses, the AO cannot make addition merely by comparing the expenditure with the preceding year’s expenditure.

Low GP rate as compared to earlier Asst. Year can’t be the sole reason for rejection of books of accounts or for making addition on account of low gross profit:
The AO merely gone by the fact that there was a fall in the gross profit rate as compared to the preceding assessment year which itself is no ground to reject the books of accounts of the assessee. No specific defect in the maintenance of the books of accounts by the assessee has been pointed out AO. The AO further noted that day to day stock and inward and outward registers are maintained on computer. Perhaps, this was the sale reason which swayed the AO to reject the books of accounts and make the addition. Now-a-days it is common knowledge that all the records are maintained on computer including by the government and semi government organizations. Even if, records are maintained on computer is not ground to reject the explanation of the assessee. The AO should have verified the entries from the computerized records also to point out any defect thereon. In the absence of any specific defect pointed out in the books of accounts and the records maintained on computer, the AO was not justified in rejecting the books results, or to enhance the gross profit rate.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

TAX APPEAL No. 1501 of 2011

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV 

Versus

SYMPHONY COMFORT SYSTEM LTD

Date : 01/10/2012

ORAL ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) dated 30th June 2011. For the  assessment year 2005-06, following questions have been presented for our consideration :

“(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.61,21,033/- made on account of law gross profit?”

(B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.45,19,044/- made on account of excessive expenses?”

(C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.24,43,330/- made on account of excessive claim of depreciation on moulds any dyes at 25% instead of 40%?”

Question No.1 pertains to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of low gross profit.

The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, however, deleted such addition after examining the material on record. In particular, the Tribunal while upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this respect, made following observations:

“4. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition. The AO merely gone by the fact that there was a fall in the gross profit rate as compared to the preceding assessment year which itself is no ground to reject the books of accounts of the assessee. No specific defect in the maintenance of the books of accounts by the assessee has been pointed out AO. The AO further noted that day to day stock and inward and outward registers are maintained on computer. Perhaps, this was the sale reason which swayed the AO to reject the books of accounts and make the addition. Now-a-days it is common knowledge that all the records are maintained on computer including by the government and semi government organizations. Even if, records are maintained on computer is not ground to reject the explanation of the assessee. The AO should have verified the entries from the computerized records also to point out any defect thereon. In the absence of any specific defect pointed out in the books of accounts and the records maintained on computer, the AO was not justified in rejecting the books results, or to enhance the gross profit rate. Accordingly, there is no merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. The same is accordingly, dismissed.”

From the above, it can be seen that the entire  issue is based on appreciation of evidence on record. No question of law, therefore, arises particularly when the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal concurrently held in favour of the assessee.

Issue No.2 pertains to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of excessive expenses. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, however were of the opinion that such additions were not justified. The Tribunal while upholding the view of the Commissioner (Appeals), made following observations :

“6. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. The AO merely made comparative study of the expenses for the year under consideration with the preceding assessment year and found that expenses incurred in the preceding assessment year were 2.89% on turnover but in the assessment year under appeal it was 4.78% on the turnover. The expenses were, therefore, found excessive without pointing out as to which of the expenses incurred by the assessee was not connected with the business activity of the assessee. The AO has not pointed out which of the expenditure were not admissible in law. In the absence of any pointing out inadmissible expenses, the AO cannot make addition merely by comparing the expenditure with the preceding year’s expenditure. The learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts and material on record rightly deleted the addition. This ground of appeal of the revenue is accordingly dismissed.”

The entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence. No question of law arises. When the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal concurrently held that on the basis of the evidence, addition as made by the Assessing Officer was not justified, we are not inclined to interfere.

With respect to the third question, we notice that identical issue had come up before this Court in Tax Appeal No.97 of 2000, wherein, relying on the earlier decision of this Court in the case of the same assessee concerning identical question, such question was not entertained.

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.

(Akil Kureshi, J.)

(Harsha Devani, J.)

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25527)
Type : Judiciary (10278)
Tags : high court judgments (4099)

0 responses to “Expenditure cannot be considered excessive merely by comparing it with preceding year’s expenditure”

  1. k c agarwal says:

    i think this judgment is very much satisfactory. because there may be many ground for the up down of G P. Now a days, the market is very much flacuating , it is not being possible to maintain G P RATIO.

    C A K C AGARWAL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *