Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 15 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - addition as excess stock declared during the course of search - AO did not make any addition or did not bring any income or part of income u/s 69 - Estimation of income - NP determination - AO estimated the income @2.15% on total turnover - HELD THAT:- Two views are possible with regard to excess stock found during the course of search in the premises of the assessee. According to the decisions relied upon by the assessee, the same forms part of business income and the same cannot be assessed u/s 69 or 69A - Since two views are possible on assessment of excess stock as business income as well as unexplained investment as per the views of Ld.Pr.CIT and the assessee, the AO after examining the explanation taken a view that the excess stock required to be assessed as business income, accordingly completed the assessment. Therefore, when two views are possible on the same issue and the AO has taken one of such views, the Pr.CIT is not permitted to substitute his view to tax the assessee at higher rate by applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act in the proceedings u/s 263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spectra Shares and Scrips (P) Limited [2013 (6) TMI 173 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] held that merely because of difference of opinion, Pr.CIT cannot invoke his powers u/s 263. Also in G.V.R. ASSOCIATES [2017 (4) TMI 393 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] held that the estimation of the net profit is one of the permissible methods of assessment of income from business. The Assessing Officer had taken a conscious decision of estimating the net profit from business after considering the nature and complexity of the books of account maintained by the assessee. Once the Assessing Officer had taken a conscious decision and acted in accordance with law and made the assessment, the same could not be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, simply because according to him, the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiries. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|