Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 55 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 - Held that:- CIT(A) directed the A.O. to treat the entire deposits as her business turnover and directed the A.O. to estimate the profit @ 8% on the deposits. If the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to the acceptance of the source of funds is wrong, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to either file an appeal or to file cross-objection or appeal by way of a petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. But in the instant case, no such action was taken at any stage of the proceedings which implies that the Revenue has accepted the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) i.e., the source of funds was referable to the monies pooled from the customers in the form of advances received and sales effected in the business. In such event, the addition cannot be made u/s 69 of the Act. Powers of the Ld. CIT(A) in disposing of the first appeal - CIT(A) directed the A.O. to treat the entire deposits as her business turnover and directed the A.O. to estimate the profit @ 8% on the deposits - Held that:- While computing the total business income of the assessee, the Assessing Officer estimated the sales at an enhanced figure and applied a higher rate of Gross Profit. According to Hon’ble High Court the only matter dealt with by the Assessing Officer, in the assessment order, was the estimation of profits of the assessee whereas the AAC expressed doubts about the capacity of the assessee to raise finances for the purchase of goods and to show a huge turnover in the very first year of his business and thus, the enquiry was altogether on a new source of income which, according to the Court, is not permissible under law. It is not in dispute that this information was furnished for the first time and never produced before the Assessing Officer. There is a live link between the statement of the assessee and the turnover declared by the assessee since the turnover of the assessee otherwise was much less which was in fact commented upon by the Assessing Officer in his remand report by stating that sales were shown only to the tune of ₹ 17,13,202/- and it is not possible to claim that she has received advances of huge amounts of cash during the Financial Year 2007-2008 to the tune of ₹ 46,32,200/-. The assessee’s reply on the other hand was that it was only advances received from the parties and sales were made against such advances. There is a live link between the statement of the assessee and the turnover declared by the assessee since the turnover of the assessee otherwise was much less which was in fact commented upon by the Assessing Officer in his remand report by stating that sales were shown only to the tune of ₹ 17,13,202/- and it is not possible to claim that she has received advances of huge amounts of cash during the Financial Year 2007-2008 to the tune of ₹ 46,32,200/-. The assessee’s reply on the other hand was that it was only advances received from the parties and sales were made against such advances. Since the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) is in consonance with the claim of the assessee that she has received business advances and therefore, it cannot be said that there is a new source of income but only the source which was contended by the assessee since it was claimed as advances received in the course of her business and sales made therein. No infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee
|