Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1202 - ITAT COCHINReopening of assessment - Held that:- The reasons recorded by the Assessing officer are specific, definite and relevant to the matter under dispute. The return of income was filed by the assessee was accepted without any scrutiny and hence it cannot be said that the Assessing officer had expressed his opinion while processing the return of income u/s. 143(1) of the Act. In our view, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing officer under the main provision of section 147 meets all the requirements of law. Further, the survey material recovered during the course of survey u/s. 133 of the Act on 24-09-2009 at the Kollam lab of the assessee , accompanied by the sworn statement of the Manager of the Kollam lab of the assessee, Shri Philip Varghese, show that the assessee has suppressed receipts for conducting MRI CT scan etc. Though the assessee issued receipts to the patients for fees collected by it for conducting various tests, copy of these receipts were not maintained in its books of accounts and only adhoc amounts were recorded in the books of account without any basis. There is variation between actual receipts and declared receipts in the books of accounts. Being so, the Assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped from assessment so that the Assessing officer issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act to assess the escaped income of the assessee. Quantification of the unaccounted income - Held that:- There is clear case of suppression of collections on daily basis for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 having been found during the course of survey carried out by the Department and the same was admitted by the assessee’s Manager, Shri Philip Varghese in his sworn statement. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1973 (4) TMI 49 - SUPREME Court 1) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case wherein it was held that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bona fide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact that there is no proof in support of that estimate is immaterial and it is his best judgment assessment. The actual collection of Kottrakkara lab as found during the survey for four months is ₹ 27,14,505/- as against shown in the books of accounts for the corresponding period at ₹ 23,76,750/-. The difference for four months is worked out at ₹ 3,37,755/-. Thus, for the whole year, the suppressed collection for the Kottarakkara lab is worked out on the basis of the actual suppressed collection at ₹ 10,13,265/-. In our opinion, it would be reasonable if the estimation of unaccounted collection is made on the basis of actual suppressed collection found during the course of survey and and increase it for the whole year by multiplying by three (i.e.,12 months divided by 4 months). For Kollam lab there is increase of 24% per annum in declared receipts as compared to the assessment year 2009-10 with the assessment year 2010-11. Accordingly, the suppressed receipts is to be estimated at the increased rate of 24% of ₹ 24,35,576/- for the assessment year 2010-11, i.e., 28,97,354/-. Thus, the addition would be ₹ 24,35,576/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and ₹ 28,97,354/- for the assessment year 2010-11 is to be made which would be over and above the returned income. There cannot be any further deduction towards expenses against the suppressed income for both the assessment years. Since in our opinion, all the expenses relating to the business are said to have been taken care of in the regular books of account. With this observation, the Revenue ground in both the appeals is partly allowed.
|