9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1490 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 69A - unexplained cash deposited in bank account - receipts from sale of services - restricting the addition to 30% of gross business receipts only on the basis of assessment made u/s. 144 - HELD THAT - We note that CIT(A) has gone into the past records of the assessee and has found that in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 assessment has been framed u/s. 144 of the Act by computing income @ 30% of the Gross Profit. CIT(A) has treated the cash deposits as business receipts and thereafter directed that 30% of the same should be treated as profit and accordingly Rs. 89, 40, 039/- has been computed as profit chargeable to tax. In our considered opinion ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view which does not need any interference on our part accordingly we uphold the same. Appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are: (a) Whether the learned CIT(A) was correct in restricting the addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act to 30% of the gross business receipts of Rs. 2,98,00,130/- based on the assessments framed under section 144 of the Act for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, without providing any detailed or reasonable findings. (b) Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,08,60,091/- (which is 70% of the gross receipts) on account of unexplained money under section 69A, despite the assessee's failure to offer any explanation during the assessment and appellate proceedings. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a): Validity of restricting addition to 30% of gross business receipts based on prior assessments under section 144 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to treat any unexplained money found in the hands of the assessee as income of that previous year. Section 144 allows the AO to make an assessment to the best of his judgment where the assessee fails to comply with notices or does not file returns properly, often resulting in estimation of income. Prior assessments under section 144 can be relevant for determining reasonable estimates of income or profits in subsequent years. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) examined the past assessments for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, which were completed under section 144 by estimating income at 30% of gross receipts. The CIT(A) treated the cash deposits of Rs. 2,98,00,130/- during FY 2016-17 as business receipts and applied the same 30% profit rate to arrive at a taxable income of Rs. 89,40,039/-. The Tribunal concurred with this approach, holding that reliance on past assessments under section 144 to estimate profits for the current year was a reasonable and correct approach. Key evidence and findings: The AO found cash deposits totaling Rs. 2,98,00,130/- in various bank accounts during FY 2016-17. The assessee failed to offer any explanation despite multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee declared only Rs. 9,48,469/- as receipts from sale of services and did not file audited accounts or respond to notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1). Given the lack of explanation and the prior assessments, the CIT(A) estimated income at 30% of gross receipts. Application of law to facts: The AO's addition under section 69A was based on unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) applied a consistent profit rate of 30% as per earlier years' assessments under section 144, thereby reducing the addition from the full amount of Rs. 2,98,00,130/- to Rs. 89,40,039/-. The Tribunal upheld this approach as a reasonable exercise of discretion in estimating income in the absence of satisfactory explanation. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 30% without providing reasonable findings and that the entire amount should be treated as unexplained money. The Tribunal rejected this argument, holding that the CIT(A)'s reliance on prior assessments under section 144 was justified and that the approach did not require further detailed findings. Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order restricting the addition to 30% of gross receipts based on prior assessments, finding no infirmity in the approach. Issue (b): Deletion of the balance addition despite failure of the assessee to explain the deposits Relevant legal framework and precedents: Under section 69A, unexplained money found in the hands of the assessee is deemed to be income. The burden lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such money. Failure to do so typically results in addition of the entire unexplained amount. However, the AO and appellate authorities have discretion to estimate income based on available material. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,08,60,091/- by applying a profit rate of 30% on gross receipts, despite the assessee's failure to provide any explanation. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) took a pragmatic approach by treating the deposits as business receipts and estimating taxable income on a profit percentage basis, consistent with earlier years' assessments. The Tribunal found this approach reasonable and did not interfere. Key evidence and findings: The assessee did not respond to notices or provide audited accounts. The AO made addition of the full amount as unexplained money. The CIT(A) relied on prior years' assessments and the nature of deposits to estimate income at 30% of gross receipts. Application of law to facts: While the assessee failed to explain the deposits, the CIT(A) applied a consistent profit rate to estimate income rather than accept the AO's full addition. The Tribunal accepted this as a reasonable exercise of discretion under the circumstances. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that deletion of the major portion of the addition was erroneous given the absence of any explanation. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the CIT(A)'s reliance on prior assessments and the principle of estimating income at a reasonable profit rate. Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 2,08,60,091/- and confirmed addition of Rs. 89,40,039/- as taxable income. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that: "In our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) has taken a correct view which does not need any interference on our part." The core principles established include:
Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the addition at Rs. 89,40,039/- and deletion of the balance Rs. 2,08,60,091/-, thus affirming the CIT(A)'s order.
|
