Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 392 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT:- AO can make assessment u/s. 153A only in the case, which is pending for regular assessment u/s. 143. In the appellant's case as stated in AR's letter order under section 143(1) stood completed. Therefore, appellant's case squarely falls outside the purview of section 153A. Further, no new materials were found or unearthed during the course of search. As relying on MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE, MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN case [2020 (8) TMI 835 - ITAT BANGALORE] we hold that in the present case also, the Assessment Order passed by the AO under section 153A for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are bad in law and therefore, other grounds regarding merits of various additions in these two years are academic and no adjudication is called for about those grounds in these two years. Estimation of income - as argued CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the estimation of profits at 4% which is not backed by any evidence of comparable cases while in the case of supari business, profits are not above 2% - AO made addition @12% of the alleged undisclosed sales turnover based on data retrieved from the impounded materials - HELD THAT:- AO has taken the profit percentage at 12% but he has held that in such a business, the normal profit percentage is 2 - 3% and he held that the ends of justice would be met if profit percentage is computed at 4% as in unaccounted transaction, the profit would be more as government taxes and levies are not paid and on this basis, he sustained the profit to the extent of 4% instead of 12%. In the case of Mr. M.A. Siddique Vs. DCIT [2020 (8) TMI 835 - ITAT BANGALORE] the facts are similar as noted by the Tribunal we hold that in the present case also, for Assessment Year 2012-13, profit from arecanut business should be computed by applying profit rate of 2% and this will meet the ends of justice in the facts of the present case. This ground is partly allowed. Addition of cash deposits in bank accounts - HELD THAT:- In the present case this is not the allegation of the AO that any bank account is unaccounted or that any deposit entry of such declared bank account is not accounted for in the books of assessee. Learned DR of the Revenue also could not point out any difference in facts in present case and Mr. M.A. Siddique Vs. DCIT [2020 (8) TMI 835 - ITAT BANGALORE] and hence, respectfully following this Tribunal order, we hold that in the present case also, there is valid basis of this allegation of the AO that there is unaccounted cash income simply on this basis that deposits in bank account exceeds the declared turnover and therefore, we delete this addition. Ground of the assessee's appeal allowed.
|