9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of unaccounted commission of Rs. 22,58,675. 2. Addition of Rs. 2,91,496 being unaccounted commission earned out of suppressed receipts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition on account of unaccounted commission of Rs. 22,58,675: The department contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,58,675 made on account of undisclosed commission income, arguing it constituted double taxation since the same amount was added in the block assessment. The Assessing Officer (AO) had rejected the books of account due to the non-availability of necessary bills, vouchers, and confirmations from third parties, leading to an estimation of profits. The AO estimated the commission at Rs. 32,26,679 on a turnover of Rs. 2,15,11,192, applied a gross profit rate of 15%, and after allowing expenses of Rs. 9,68,004, arrived at an undisclosed income of Rs. 22,58,675. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, reasoning that the same amount had already been taxed on a substantive basis in the block assessment and could not be taxed again in the regular assessment on a protective basis. The CIT(A) cited the Explanations to sub-section (2) of section 158BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which prevent the same income from being taxed at two different rates. 2. Addition of Rs. 2,91,496 being unaccounted commission earned out of suppressed receipts: The AO also made an addition of Rs. 2,91,496, alleging that the assessee had suppressed gross transportation receipts. The declared gross receipt was Rs. 1,87,35,042, while the AO adopted a figure of Rs. 2,15,11,195 based on details submitted during block assessment proceedings. The AO inferred suppression of gross receipts amounting to Rs. 27,16,153, applied a gross commission rate of 15%, allowed expenses of 13%, and thus made the addition. The CIT(A) deleted this addition as well, observing that the same amount had been added in the block assessment and could not be added again in the regular assessment. The CIT(A) emphasized that the details of receipts and expenses had already been filed before the date of search, and there was no reference to any seized material in the assessment order. Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the additions in regular assessment on the grounds that similar additions were made in the block assessment. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this approach, stating that under Chapter XIV-B, undisclosed income detected as a result of a search is assessed separately in block assessment, which is in addition to regular assessment. The Tribunal highlighted that there are two domains of undisclosed income: one falling under block assessment (based on search findings) and the other under regular assessment (based on investigations other than search). The Tribunal noted that the AO made protective assessments in both block and regular assessments to avoid disputes on whether the income falls under block or regular assessment. The Tribunal clarified that an item of income can only be taxed once, either in block or regular assessment, and if it is finally assessed in block assessment, it cannot be considered in regular assessment. In this case, the CIT(A) held that the items of income were not assessable in block assessment as they pertained to periods prior to the search and were part of regular books. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that these items were not "assessed" in block assessment and were available for consideration in regular assessment. The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, reversing the CIT(A)'s findings, and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the additions on merits, specifically whether the provisions of section 145 were rightly invoked by the AO and if the estimation made was proper. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to re-examine the merits of the additions.
|
