2014 (6) TMI 999 - AT - Income Tax

Additions towards on money receipts - Held that - The principles of natural justice require that no one should be punished on the basis of presumption. The addition has been made on presumption that if the assessee was suppressing the sale and expenses for subsequent year, he must have suppressed sales and expenses for earlier year also. Such addition could not be confirmed as the same was not supported by cogent material and evidence. The above decisions were referred to in respect of block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. The ratio laid down in these cases is applicable to the case of the assessee. In view of above facts and circumstances and also in view of the ratio as relied on by the assessee, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was not justified in estimating on-money income in respect of all transactions of sale of plots, land and bungalows during F.Ys 2001-02 to 2007-08 relevant to A.Ys 2002-03 to 2008-09. Accordingly, the CIT(A) held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on these accounts on estimate basis @ 50% of the recorded transactions was not unwarranted. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. Unrecorded amount paid in respect of land at Gate No.150A, B, C - Held that - The stand of the assessee has been that the registered purchase deed was not yet entered into. The Assessing Officer has not disputed/rebutted this contention of the assessee in the supplementary remand report dated 11.06.2010. In view of the above facts, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not recorded cash payments of ₹ 42,20,574/- in the books of accounts was rightly rejected by the CIT(A). This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. Addition on account of alleged unrecorded cash receipts - Held that - It was not the case of the Assessing Officer that the amount received was over and above the consideration stated in the said agreement. Therefore even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the amount was actually received by the assessee, the same could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee, as the same is in the nature of advance and the possession of the land is not given to the proposed purchaser and no sale deed was entered into in favour of the purchasers or any person nominated by the purchasers in this regard. In view of the above, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taxing the amount of ₹ 1,30,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on account of alleged undisclosed receipt. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side because normal receipts were found with the person who made the payment G.K. Jadhav in his statement recorded on 08.02.2008 stated that an amount of ₹ 1.30 crores was not received and two persons were only mediators and this amount was made for betterment of the property in question. There is nothing as a result of which took after 51 days of alleged transactions claimed by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, no efforts have been made to take action u/s.153C of the Act against the two persons in respect of alleged unaccounted payment of 1.30 crores. There is nothing consideration of above deal as finally in favour of alleged purchaser. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) on this point confirmed. Addition on account of profit of extra work - Held that - The actual work done in respect of 12 persons out of these 19 persons were included in the amount of actual work done of ₹ 38,26,284/- as per Page Nos. 30 to 40 of Annexure A-6. Further, it was pointed-out on behalf of assessee that other 7 persons including work of temple was only estimate for extra work which was not carried-out by the assessee. From the above facts, the CIT(A) concluded that the Assessing Officer incorrectly worked-out the amounts of extra work by considering amounts of estimates in respect of 12 persons and also amount of actual work done in respect of the said 12 persons. The Assessing Officer has also not considered that the 7 persons including the work for temple was not carried-out by the assessee and only estimate was worked out by the Engineer. Difference between actual work done as noted in the seized diaries and receipts recorded in the books of accounts - Held that - The stand of the assessee has been that the customers have actually paid ₹ 35,30,680/- in respect of the extra work. The stand of the assessee was found to be correct by the CIT(A) and he held that the actual amount received on account of extra work is in fact recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee company. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the assessee has earned undisclosed profit of ₹ 6,70,819/- and ₹ 2,68,583/- in A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2007- 08 respectively. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of additions towards on-money receipts.
2. Addition on account of alleged unrecorded cash receipts of Rs. 1,30,00,000.
3. Addition on account of profit from extra work.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Additions Towards On-Money Receipts:

The primary issue pertains to the addition of on-money receipts estimated and taxed by the Assessing Officer (AO) at 50% of the sales for each year from A.Y. 2002-03 to 2008-09. The AO relied on 11 transactions referring to seized material and a statement by the Director of the assessee company, Shri G.K. Jadhav, who admitted that on-money received was 15% to 20% of the total consideration. The AO found it improbable that the assessee did not earn on-money in earlier years and thus estimated on-money at 50% of recorded sales.

The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of on-money receipts for specific transactions in A.Ys. 2005-06, 2007-08, and 2008-09 but deleted the remaining addition by estimating the same at 50% of recorded turnover for A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2008-09. The CIT(A) observed that the AO was not justified in making additions based on estimations without cogent material and evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the principles of natural justice require that no one should be punished based on presumption and that the facts prevailing in later years could not be assumed to have prevailed in earlier years.

2. Addition on Account of Alleged Unrecorded Cash Receipts of Rs. 1,30,00,000:

The AO alleged that the assessee received Rs. 1.30 crores in cash based on an agreement and receipts found during the search. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the original receipts were found with Shri G.K. Jadhav and not with the alleged payers, Shri R.K. Patole and Shri P.L. Bagul, who denied the payment. The CIT(A) observed that the amount was not actually received and was only prepared to show investments to potential buyers. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that no cash or investments were found during the search, and no action was taken against the alleged payers under Section 153C of the Act.

3. Addition on Account of Profit from Extra Work:

The AO estimated profit at 10% of alleged receipts for extra construction work based on seized diaries. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the actual amount received for extra work was recorded in the books of accounts and that the AO incorrectly worked out the amounts by considering estimates and actual work done. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the actual amount received on account of extra work was recorded in the books of accounts and that the AO was not justified in holding that the assessee earned undisclosed profit.

Conclusion:

The appeals filed by the Revenue for A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 & 2008-09 were dismissed, while the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 was partly allowed. The appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 was allowed, and the appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 was dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 30th day of June, 2014.