Facts of the Case

The assessee, Jai Bajrang Gur Bhandar, a partnership firm engaged in wholesale trading of gur, sugar, dal and similar commodities, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring income of Rs. 2,38,450. The case was selected for scrutiny.

During assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that bank transactions were not commensurate with reported purchases and sales. Despite a significant increase in turnover exceeding Rs. 2 crores compared to the preceding year, the gross profit rate remained unchanged. Discrepancies were also noted between cash balances reflected in books and audit report. The assessee failed to produce complete sales and purchase vouchers for the period prior to 9 November 2016 and did not fully comply with notices.

Accordingly, the AO rejected the books of account under Section 145(3). Observing abnormal increase in sales and cash receipts during the demonetization period, the AO adopted the gross profit rate of the subsequent assessment year (3.6%) and made an addition of Rs. 12,25,364 on account of gross profit and Rs. 5,80,953 on account of net profit. An additional sum of Rs. 45 lakhs was added under Section 69A and taxed under Section 115BBE.

On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed relief by deleting the net profit addition and the Section 69A addition but upheld the enhancement of gross profit at 3.6% without recording detailed reasons. The assessee challenged this sustenance before the ITAT.

 Issues Involved

  1. Whether estimation of gross profit after rejection of books under Section 145(3) could be based solely on the subsequent year’s GP rate.
  2. Whether past trading results should be considered while estimating income.
  3. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition without detailed reasoning. 

Petitioner’s Arguments (Assessee)

  • The addition based on the subsequent year’s gross profit rate was arbitrary and illegal.
  • Estimation should be based on past history or comparable cases of the relevant year.
  • The AO did not issue any show-cause notice before applying the higher GP rate.
  • Judicial precedents establish that results of subsequent years cannot be applied to earlier years.
  • Comparative data of past years showed consistent GP rates around 1.7%–2.1%, whereas the subsequent year’s rate was abnormally higher.

 Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue)

  • Once books of account are rejected under Section 145(3), past history cannot be the sole basis for determining profit.
  • The AO is empowered to estimate income on reasonable grounds.
  • Various judicial decisions support higher estimation where accounts are unreliable.
  • Failure of the assessee to produce proper records justified the addition.

 Court Order / Findings (ITAT Allahabad)

  • The rejection of books under Section 145(3) was not disputed by the assessee and therefore attained finality.
  • Estimation of profit is a question of fact and must depend on the circumstances of each case.
  • Sole reliance on the subsequent year’s GP rate was inappropriate, especially when earlier years’ results had been accepted by the Department.
  • At the same time, past history alone could not be the only criterion once books were found unreliable.
  • Relying on principles laid down in judicial precedents including CIT v. Chadha Automobiles (Delhi High Court), the Tribunal held that both prior and subsequent trading results should be considered.
  • The assessee had shown a sharp increase in turnover during demonetization and a significant increase in GP in the subsequent year without adequate explanation, making it reasonable to consider both periods.

Accordingly, the Tribunal estimated the gross profit at 2.68% of gross receipts, representing an average of GP rates from preceding and succeeding years, and partly allowed the appeal.

  Important Clarification


  • Rejection of books under Section 145(3) does not permit arbitrary estimation of income.
  • Estimation must be fair, reasonable, and based on relevant material.
  • Neither past results alone nor subsequent results alone should be the sole basis.
  • Accepted trading results of adjacent years can provide a balanced and rational benchmark.
  • The decision underscores that profit estimation after rejection of accounts is fundamentally a fact-specific exercise guided by judicial principles rather than rigid formulas.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1771231680_JAIBAJRANGGURBHANDARALLAHABADVS.INCOMETAXOFFICER13ALLAHABAD.pdf

 Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools