2012 (6) TMI 206 - HC - Income Tax

Block Assessment - Estimation of the undisclosed income - based on the admission made by the Manager/ Managing partner which is to the effect that the practice of the assessee was to reflect 75% of his business turnover in the books of account Held that - irregularity or illegality or anything wrong in law in the Tribunal directing the undisclosed income being computed based on the admission made by the very assessee. Insofar as the assessment of profit on the undisclosed part of the income is concerned, making it at 25% cannot be found fault with Whether income assessed twice i.e., both in the regular assessment and in the block period Held that - undisclosed income being taken at 25% over and above the disclosed turnover attributable to the turnover as reflected in the books of account and that being an admission of the assessee and the profit worked out at 25% on the undisclosed turnover, there is absolutely no scope to contend that the same income has been subjected to tax twice cannot succeed. Decided in favour of the revenue. Appeal dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal's order allowing the departmental appeal and rejecting the appellant's cross-objections was perverse, contrary to facts, and against evidences for the Assessment Years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 2000-2001.
2. Whether the Assessing Authority was right in not deducting disallowances made in the regular assessment from the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98.
3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in considering the estimated income for the broken period relevant to Assessment Year 2000-2001 as undisclosed income includible in the Block Assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Tribunal's Order on Departmental Appeal and Cross-Objections
The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal in part and rejected the assessee's cross-appeal. The Tribunal based its decision on the admission by the managing partner of the firm that only 75% of the actual sales were reflected in the books of account. The Tribunal adopted an estimated undisclosed income basis of 25% non-disclosure and a uniform profit rate of 28% on the undisclosed turnover. The High Court found no irregularity or illegality in the Tribunal's approach, noting that the estimation was based on the assessee's own admission, supported by material found during the search.

Issue 2: Deduction of Disallowances in Regular Assessment from Undisclosed Income
The assessee argued that the undisclosed income for the block period should account for disallowances made in the regular assessment. However, the High Court held that the subject matter of the block assessment period is only the undisclosed income and not the regular income. The Tribunal's method of estimating undisclosed income based on the assessee's admission and the material found during the search was upheld. The High Court rejected the argument that the same income was assessed twice, noting that the block assessment only concerned undisclosed income.

Issue 3: Inclusion of Estimated Income for Broken Period in Block Assessment
The assessee contended that the block assessment for the period relevant to Assessment Year 2000-2001 was speculative since the accounting period had not ended, and the return had not yet been filed. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the block assessment focuses on undisclosed income, not the disclosed income or income to be disclosed in future returns. The Court found that the Assessing Officer's method of taking the average turnover for the earlier eight months was reasonable and based on the books of account.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the assessee's arguments. The Tribunal's decision to estimate undisclosed income based on the assessee's admission and to reject the cross-appeal was upheld. The questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. The appeal was dismissed.

← Previous Next →