GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 420 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (3) TMI 420 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Addition to the undisclosed return income - addition made on the basis of GP rate and peak credit - Held that:- We find that the AO was not justified to make the addition of ₹ 65,78,933/- in addition to the undisclosed return income of ₹ 21,36,111/- which was filed by the assessee during the course of block proceedings and as such the AO has ignored the block return income of ₹ 21,36,111/- which is the part of the total undisclosed income 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

ready been offered by the assessee in the block return income and accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to assess the total undisclosed income of ₹ 65,78,933/- only (Rs. 6,76,393/- + ₹ 59,02,540/-) after the order of the Tribunal and as such the appeal of the assesse was rightly allowed. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which in our opinion, does not need any interference - Decided 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

ainst revenue - IT(SS)A Nos. 37 & 36/Del/2012 - Dated:- 10-3-2016 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri L. P. Sahu, Accountant Member For the Petitioner : Mrs. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) For the Respondent : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv ORDER Per H. S. Sidhu, J. M. The Department has filed these Appeals against the impugned Orders both dated 08.05.2012 relating to deletion of addition of ₹ 21,36,111/- and relating to deletion of penalty of ₹ 43,42,100/- u/s. 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act .....

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 credit are separate and in addition to already undisclosed income of ₹ 65.78 lacs. 2. On the fact and law the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 21,36,111/- made by the AO by ignoring the fact that addition made by the AO should be added to the income which has been returned by the assessee. 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cts and had filed inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this hearing. IT(SS)A NO. 37/DEL/2012 4. The brief facts of the case are that the search and seizure operation was carried out at the business premises of the assessee. During the search proceedings, certain incriminating documents were found consisting of a bung of loose papers, a pock .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

005, Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has held that the unaccounted cash balance with the assessee at any point of time was not more than 6,76,393/- and accordingly confirmed the addition of ₹ 6,76,393/- only and deleted the balance addition of ₹ 2,35,65,207/-. Against which the Assessee as well as the Department was in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has upheld the estimated GP rate @4.4% which was taken by the AO and as such has revered the order of the C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessed at ₹ 87,15,044/- which included the assessee s undisclosed block return income of ₹ 21,36,111/-. After that assessee filed petition u/s. 154 before the AO which was rejected by the AO vide order dated 20.6.2011 passed u/s. 154/254 read with Section 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961 determining total income at ₹ 87,15,040/- as against the returned income of ₹ 21,36,111/- against which the assessee filed the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi who vide impugned 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

both the parties and perused the records, especially the Order of the revenue authorities. The facts emerges from the order of the AO is that a search u/s 132(1) was conducted in this case on 25/02/2003 and various incriminating books of documents were seized during the course of search. The block assessment proceedings were initiated for the block period 1.4.1996 to 25.2.2003 and the AO had issued notice u/s. 158BC for filing of the block return. The assessee had filed the block return and decl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nted purchase and sale and also under the peak credit of ₹ 2,42,41,600/- on the ground of capital investment in unaccounted purchases and sales. Thereafter, the assessee had filed appeal against the order of the AO and the then Ld. CITA(A) had held the AO could take the estimated GP @ 2.39% only which is on the basis of seized books and documents and the AO is not justified to take the estimated GP @ 4.4% which is on the basis of regular returns of income of the assessee. Regarding the add .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rtment was in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the first round has upheld the estimated GP rate @ 4.4% which was taken by the AO and as such has reversed the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which had upheld the GP rate addition @2.39% which was taken on the basis of seized books and documents. Regarding the addition of ₹ 2,42,41,600/- made by the AO under the head peak credit the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which had confirmed the addition of ₹ 6,76,393/- 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

was submitted that the AO was not justified to make the total assessment at ₹ 87,15,044/- as the AO has also added the undisclosed block return income of ₹ 21,36,111/- of the assessee which was filed during the course of block proceedings. It was submitted that the assessee has voluntarily offered the undisclosed income of ₹ 21,36,111/- and the final assessed income as per the order of the Tribunal is ₹ 65,78,933/- only (GP of ₹ 59,02,540/- (+) peak credit 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

ustified to reject the petition u/s 154 of the assessee without any valid reasons. It was submitted that the assessee had already filed the undisclosed block return of ₹ 21,36,111/- whereas the Tribunal has confirmed the undisclosed income of ₹ 65,78,933/- only which included the undisclosed block return income of the assessee of ₹ 21,36,111/-. It was further submitted that the total undisclosed income of the assessee is ₹ 65,78,933/- after the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e main submission of the assessee is that the assessee has filed the block return income of ₹ 21,36,111/- on the basis of seized books of documents etc and the AO has also made the additions on the basis of same seized books of documents etc and finally the Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal has confirmed the total addition of ₹ 65,78,933/- which includes the declared block return income of ₹ 21,36,111/- and as such the AO should not add the block return income of ₹ 21 ,36,111/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of ₹ 65,78,933/- in addition to the undisclosed return income of ₹ 21,36,111/- which was filed by the assessee during the course of block proceedings and as such the AO has ignored the block return income of ₹ 21,36,111/- which is the part of the total undisclosed income of the assessee of ₹ 65,78,933/-. It is apparent that the total undisclosed income as per the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal is ₹ 65,78,933/- which included the undisclosed block return inc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 59,02,540/-) after the order of the Tribunal and as such the appeal of the assesse was rightly allowed. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which in our opinion, does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. As a result, the Revenue s appeal stands dismissed. IT(SS) No. 36/Del/2012 8. The brief fact .....

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 the contentions raised in the grounds of Appeal. In support of her contention, she filed a copy of the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harkaran Das Ved Pal reported in 336 ITR 8 (Delhi) and stated that the present issue of penalty is fully covered by the said decision and hence, by following the same the appeal of the Revenue may be allowed. 11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he has passed 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

re alleged undisclosed income was computed on the basis of estimation . - Rajasthan High Court Decision in the case of CIT vs. Dr. Giriraj Agarwal Giri reported in 346 ITR 152 (Rajasthan) - ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shanti Kumar Chabra reported in (2009) 32 SOT (JP) (URO). - ITAT, Jodhpur in the case of Anil Kumar Jain vs. ACIT reported in (2014) 49 Taxmann.com 139 (Jodhpur- Trib) 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records especially the orders of the rev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n of ₹ 21,36,111/- whereas the Tribunal has confirmed the undisclosed income of ₹ 65,78,933/- which included the undisclosed block return income of the assessee of ₹ 21,36,111/-. It was submitted that the total undisclosed income of the assessee is ₹ 65,78,933/- after the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal and there is double addition of the undisclosed block income of ₹ 21,36,111/- which has been offered by the assessee in the block return on the basis of sei .....

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 made the additions on the basis of same seized books of documents etc and finally the Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal has confirmed the total addition of ₹ 65,78,933/- which includes the declared block return income of ₹ 21,36,111/- and as such the AO should not add the block return income of ₹ 21,36,111/- in addition to ₹ 65,78,933/-. It is submitted that the AO did not make any separate addition of ₹ 21,36,111/- in original order u/s 158BC dated 25/02/2005 in whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o levy any penalty as the entire addition has been made on the estimated basis. It is submitted that the assessee had estimated and filed block return income of ₹ 21,36,111/- on the basis of seized books of documents but the AO did not accept the block return income of the assessee and the AO estimated the unaccounted GP @ 4.4% of ₹ 50,01,857/- on the basis of GP of the regular returns of the assessee. But the Ld.CIT(A) had overturned the finding of the AO and had estimated the GP @2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rturned by the Ld.CIT(A) and the addition to the extent of ₹ 6,76,393/- was only confirmed and the balance additions were deleted and the same finding of the Ld.CIT(A) has been upheld by the Tribunal. It is submitted that it is apparent that the income of the assessee has been estimated as there has been differences of opinion among the assessee, AO, the Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal regarding the undisclosed income/additions and as such the AO is not justified to levy the penalty on the esti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is not leviable in the case of estimated income/estimated addition and some of the case laws are :- (i) ACIT Vs Shanti Kumar Chabara, [2009] 121 TTJ (Jaipur) 985 (ii) DCIT Vs Koatex Infrastructure Ltd, [2006] 102 TTJ (Mumbai) 737 (iii) Smt. Mala Dayanithi Vs DCIT, [2005] 92 TTJ (Bangalore) 270 (iv) CIT Vs Ravi Kant Jain, 250 ITR 141 (Del) [2001] 12.1 From the above, it was found that AO was not justified to make the addition of ₹ 65,78,933/- in addition to the undisclosed return 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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