Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Rkshah Hospital & Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. And Others Versus ACIT., Central Circle-5 And Others

2015 (3) TMI 974 - ITAT LUCKNOW

Estimation of income - applying 20% net profit rate - whether bank account No. 12505 and 7968 do not belong to the assessee company? - assessment year 2004-05 - Held that:- When Dr. A. K. Shah, M.D. of the assessee company has admitted in the statement recorded during search that the bank accounts are belonging to the assessee company, simply because the accounts are in two different names, it cannot be accepted that the transactions in these bank accounts do not belong to the assessee company. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otal of these two amounts has been arrived at ₹ 38,73,965/- and under these facts, the turnover was estimated at ₹ 40 lacs. In our considered opinion, in the facts of the present case, when these two bank accounts are belonging to the assessee company and receipts as per these two bank accounts were not accounted for in regular books, the receipts as per these two bank accounts and as per books of account have to be added to estimate the gross receipt of the assessee company and ther .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sent case. We, therefore, hold that applying net profit rate of 10% will meet the ends of justice and hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to apply net profit rate of 10% on estimated gross receipt of ₹ 40 lac and in this manner, the assessee gets part relief of ₹ 4 lac. These grounds are partly allowed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Estimation of income - applying net profit @25% - assessment year 2005-06 - Held that:- It is noted by CIT(A) that receipts as pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessee before depreciation was 16.09%. Hence, in this year, we feel that applying net profit rate of 17% will meet the ends of justice as against 25% applied by CIT (A). We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly. The assessee gets relief of ₹ 4.40 lac being 8% of ₹ 55 lac. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Addition on account of undisclosed income - CIT(A) deleted the addition - whether the total unaccounted receipts as per total credits in two bank accounts s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ate of net profit, it should be applied at 17%. Apart from this, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this aspect. - Decided against revenue.

Bifurcation of total surrender made by the assessee of ₹ 40 lac - whether CIT(A) was justified in holding that such surrender should be bifurcated in two years i.e. ₹ 8,96,686/- in the present year and balance amount of ₹ 31,03,314/- in assessment year 2006-07 whereas it was held by Assessing Officer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ncome declared by the assessee in the return of income at ₹ 1,54,956/-. In this manner, CIT(A) has confirmed an addition of ₹ 8,96,686/-. While deciding the appeal of the assessee, we have reduced this addition by ₹ 4.40 lac because we have directed the Assessing Officer to adopt net profit of 17% as against 25%. Hence, the additional income to be taxed in the present year remains only ₹ 4,56,686/- and therefore, the amount to be considered in assessment year 2006-07 shou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s transactions of the assessee company, only net profit out of such unaccounted receipt should be taxed and not the gross receipt. The amount being taxed out of such gross receipts of ₹ 64.69 lac is more than normal income out of such gross receipt and therefore, there is no merit in this ground of the Revenue. - Decided against revenue.

Addition being credit balances found in the bank account Nos. 12050 and 7968 also - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- we do not find any me .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and 2006-07 and therefore, there is no merit. - Decided against revenue. - ITA Nos. 277 & 278/LKW/2012, ITA Nos.407 & 429/LKW/2012 - Dated:- 23-3-2015 - Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav And Shri A. K. Garodia,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri S. K. Garg, Advocate, Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal, C.I.T., D. R. ORDER Per A. K. Garodia, A. M. Out of this bunch of four appeals, there is one appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 and there are two cross appeals o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d in favour of the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) was wrong in law & on facts in computing the income of the appellant at ₹ 6,03,277/- as against the returned income of ₹ 42,720/- by estimating the turnover at ₹ 40 lacs and applying the net profit rate at 20%. 3. The learned CIT (A) was wrong in law & on facts in holding that the bank account No.12050 & 7968 pertained to the appellant company. 4. In any case & without prejudice to the above grounds, income of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0 lac and applying 20% net profit rate on this estimated turnover. He further submitted that against this estimated income of ₹ 8 lacs, deduction was allowed on account of depreciation to the extent of ₹ 2,10,593/- and in this manner, the income was estimated at ₹ 5,89,407/-. He submitted that the bank account No. 12505 and 7968 do not belong to the assessee company and therefore, this addition is not justified and regarding estimation of turnover at ₹ 40 lac and applying .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onging to Shri Uma Shanker Shah and not to the assessee. He has noted that he has held in the case of Shri Uma Shanker Shah that the transactions of this account do not pertain to Shri Uma Shanker Shah but belong to the assessee company. He has also given a finding that this finding is supported by the averments made by Dr. A. K. Shah in his statement recorded during the course of search conducted on 28/03/2006 and by Shri Uma Shanker Shah in the statement recorded in post search proceedings. Si .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

K. Shah, M.D. of the assessee company has admitted in the statement recorded during search that the bank accounts are belonging to the assessee company, simply because the accounts are in two different names, it cannot be accepted that the transactions in these bank accounts do not belong to the assessee company. These findings of the learned CIT (A) could not be controverted by the learned AR of the assessee. Hence, on this aspect, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r considered opinion, in the facts of the present case, when these two bank accounts are belonging to the assessee company and receipts as per these two bank accounts were not accounted for in regular books, the receipts as per these two bank accounts and as per books of account have to be added to estimate the gross receipt of the assessee company and therefore, estimation of gross receipts at ₹ 40 lacs is proper and reasonable. 8. Regarding applying net profit rate of 20% on the said est .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r to apply net profit rate of 10% on estimated gross receipt of ₹ 40 lac and in this manner, the assessee gets part relief of ₹ 4 lac. These grounds are partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 10. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 i.e. I.T.A. No.278/Lkw/2012. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (A) was wrong in law & on facts in not deciding the additional .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 10,51,176/- computed by learned CIT(A) is very high & excessive. 5. The order of the learned CIT(A) is against law, facts & principles of natural justice. 11. It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that the issues raised by the assessee in this year are similar to the issue raised in assessment year 2004-05. 12. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in this year also, it is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee company, net profit rate declared by the assessee before depreciation was 16.09%. Hence, in this year, we feel that applying net profit rate of 17% will meet the ends of justice as against 25% applied by CIT (A). We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly. The assessee gets relief of ₹ 4.40 lac being 8% of ₹ 55 lac. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 15. Now we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2005-06 i.e. I.T.A. No.407/Lkw .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

income was filed at ₹ 1,54,960/- without including the surrendered amount of ₹ 20,00,000/-, the A.O. was justified in making such addition. 2. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the A.O. to apply net profit rate of 25% even on unaccounted or undisclosed credit of ₹ 21,10,000/- in two bank accounts maintained in the name of Shri Tanmay Tewari, ignoring the fact that the credits in these two bank accounts represented net undisclosed income of the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er of the Ld. CIT (A) deserves to be vacated and the assessment order passed by the A.O. be restored. 16. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 17. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per the grounds of the Revenue, two issues are involved. One issue is as to whether the total unaccounted receipts as per total credits in two bank accounts should be added in full or only net pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

part from this, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this aspect. 18. The second issue is as to whether CIT(A) was justified in holding that out of total surrender made by the assessee of ₹ 40 lac, whether CIT(A) was justified in holding that such surrender should be bifurcated in two years i.e. ₹ 8,96,686/- in the present year and balance amount of ₹ 31,03,314/- in assessment year 2006-07 whereas it was held by Assessing Officer that such surrender .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also held that on the basis of surrender alone, income cannot be assessed in the absence of any corroborating material and even on the basis of corroborating material, if the income liable to be taxed is less than the surrendered amount, then only such income can be taxed, which is proper on the basis of corroborating material. As per the material found in course of search, there were two bank accounts belonging to the assessee company, receipts of which were not included in the receipts as per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ficer to adopt net profit of 17% as against 25%. Hence, the additional income to be taxed in the present year remains only ₹ 4,56,686/- and therefore, the amount to be considered in assessment year 2006-07 should be ₹ 35,43,314/- being difference of ₹ 40 lac and ₹ 4,56,686/-. Except this modification, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A). 20. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 21. Now we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment ye .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ospital & Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd. 2. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 13,27,417/- made being credit balances found in the bank account Nos. 12050 & 79683 in the names of Sri Tanmay Tewari and Sri Uma Shanker respectively, ignoring the fact that the assessee could not furnish any satisfactory explanation and evidence before the A.O. 3. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 20,00,000/- on acco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

restored. 22. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 23. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue was decided by learned CIT(A) as per Para 8.2.2 of his order, which is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- 8.2.2 Profits of business/profession is embedded in the turnover of the business. In this case, total turnover of the business as per the audited accounts i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in its computer at the time of search, it can be safely assumed that the income that would have been offered to tax, (if the search had not taken place), would have been in the vicinity of ₹ 3-5 lakhs. The assessee, after incorporating all the unaccounted receipts, has offered a taxable income of ₹ 44,04,380/-. Accordingly, he has duly complied with his statement wherein he had surrendered an amount of ₹ 40 lakhs. Further, the said surrender was a composite amount for 2 years. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isclosed in its return of income. In this view of the matter, there was no occasion for the A.O. to once again add ₹ 20,00,000/- to the income of the assessee on account of the surrender made. Hence the addition of ₹ 2000000/- is hereby deleted. 23.1 From the above Para from the order of CIT(A), we find that a clear finding is given by him that as per the facts of the present case, the income that would have been offered to tax (if the search had not taken place), would have been in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ddition of ₹ 8,96,686/-, which has been reduced by us to ₹ 4,86,686/- and therefore, the balance amount to be considered in this year after giving effect of our order in assessment year 2005-06 is to the extent of ₹ 35,43,314/-. The amount of income as per the return of income filed by the assessee is more than the composite amount of income without considering the surrender in the vicinity of ₹ 3-5 lacs and such additional income on account of surrender of ₹ 35.43 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version