TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imated the same at 30%. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that by taking into consideration the nature of trade and material found during the course of survey operation and the statement recorded from the person in-charge of Bar, estimation of sale suppression at 26% would meet ends of justice. In other words, the sale suppression of liquor should be estimated at 26% instead of 56.33% estimated by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are modified and the Assessing Officer is directed to estimate the sale suppression on sale of liquor at Rohini International Bar at 26% instead of 56.33%. Suppression of lodge receipt at 208.84% - HUF status - CIT(A) restricting the addition to 50% of the estimation made by the AO - main contention of the assessee now before this Tribunal is that even though the lodge is situated in a prime locality of the city, 100% occupancy cannot be expected at every point of time - Held that:- This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that as rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel, 100% occupancy cannot be expected at every point of time. At the very same time, we can expect a reasonable rate of occupancy since the lod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT For The Assessee by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both Revenue and assessee in the status of HUF, have filed appeals against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee in the status of individual has also filed cross-objections. Since common issue arises for consideration in all these appeals, we heard the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. Let s first take the appeals of the Revenue in I.T.A. Nos.1484, 1487, 1488 1489/Mds/2012. All the four appeals are arising out of the assessment orders passed in the case of the assessee in the status of individual. 3. Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that there was a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') conducted on 27.02.2008 in the business premises of the assessee. During the course of survey operation, incriminating materials were found in relation to suppression o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fact there was no suppression of sales. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have deleted the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. Admittedly, there was a survey in the business premises of the assessee and the revenue authorities found certain incriminating materials. It is an admitted fact that the sale price entered in the daily stock register is less than the sale price mentioned in the menu card. The Department contends that the price mentioned in the sale register should be the sale price of the liquor. Normally, the sale price mentioned in the menu card would be the sale price of the liquor. However, the fact is that the liquor shops are giving discount on the liquor sold to their corporate guests, walk in customers, etc. for various reasons. One of the reasons presumably may be to attract many customers. Whatever may be the reason, the menu card should also reflect the sale price, happy hours discount and discount that may be given to corporate guests, walk in customers, etc. The menu card or tariff card said to be found during the course of survey operati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai-17. The assessee is also having a Bar in the lodge. According to the Ld. counsel, the premises was owned by Shri R. Panneerselvam in his individual capacity. However, the lodging business was run by HUF headed by the above said Shri Panneerselvam. The revenue authorities, during the course of survey operation, found lodge receipts. The Assessing Officer estimated the suppression of lodge receipt at 208.84%. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) restricted the same to 50% of what was estimated by the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. counsel, the occupancy of the lodge cannot be estimated to 100% at every time. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the material found by the Assessing Officer was only for the period January and February, 2007. Therefore, the suppression cannot be interpolated for other periods. According to the Ld. counsel, Rohini Lodge is situated in the heart of the city, therefore, normally the occupancy rate is high. However, it cannot be estimated to 100% at every time. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have deleted the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer instead of restricting the same to 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that as rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel, 100% occupancy cannot be expected at every point of time. At the very same time, we can expect a reasonable rate of occupancy since the lodge is located at prime locality in the heart of the city. The fact that the assessee has suppressed the sale is established on the basis of the material found during the course of survey operation. In fact, the actual receipt was ₹ 7,27,979/-. However, the assessee has disclosed in the sheet, which was impounded, at ₹ 2,35,714/-. The CIT(Appeals), after taking into consideration the nature of business, has restricted the suppression of receipt from lodge at 50% of what was estimated by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the suppression was made during the entire period of business. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and accordingly the same is confirmed. 10. The next ground of appeal is with regard to estimation of suppression of sale from Rohini Lodge Permit Room. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of the material found, estimated the suppression of sale at 47%. However, the CIT(Appeals) re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y allowed. 15. Now let s take up Revenue s appeals for assessment years 2003-04 and 2005-06. 16. Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee was assessed in his HUF status. During the course of survey operation, the revenue authorities found suppression of lodge receipt for the months of January and February, 2007. As in the case of assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer estimated the quantum of suppression of sale at 208.84%. However, the CIT(Appeals) restricted the same to 50% of the estimation made by the Assessing Officer. 17. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, contended that no material was found during the assessment years under consideration. The survey material only relates to two months, i.e. January and February, 2007. Therefore, the same cannot be used for estimation of receipt for the years under consideration. 18. Having heard the Ld. D.R. and the Ld.counsel for the assessee, this Tribunal, while considering an identical issue for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07, after taking into consideration the locality of Rohini Lodge in the city of Chennai and expected occupancy, fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
