2013 (6) TMI 432 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed income - Held that - The undisputed fact remains that the books of accounts of M/s Dhanalakshmi Jewellery was written up to 20.10.2000 only on the date of survey, i.e., on 15.11.2000. Further, the assessee also did not record in any of the documents about the receipt of money from the concern belonging to his brother. Thus, assessee could not prove his claim by showing that the said transaction was recorded in any of the documents prior to the date of search. The assessee is placing reliance on the entries recorded in the books of accounts of M/s Dhanalakshmi Jewellery, apparently after the date of search - addition as undisclosed income confirmed - Against assessee. Unexplained investment in gold biscuits - Held that - As the assessee herein did not maintain any books of account, meaning thereby, the transaction of receipt of Rs.4.70 lakhs was not recorded in any of the documents prior to the date of search. Even the purchase of gold biscuits were not recorded anywhere. AO also found that the assessee did not have any sales tax registration number also. Thus, it is seen that the assessee is trying to link the withdrawal of Rs.3.00 lakhs made by his brother with the claim of receipt of loan of Rs.4.70 lakhs from him. Since the withdrawal was less than Rs.4.70 lakhs, a further claim with regard to the sale of jewellery belonging to the wife of his brother seen to have been made. Thus, it is seen that the assessee is trying to explain the investment of Rs.4.70 lakhs without any credible evidences. Hence CIT(A) was justified in confirming the assessment of Rs.4.70 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. Against assessee. Assessment of excess of expenditure over receipts - assessee has claimed the receipt of agricultural income in the cash flow statement - Held that - As the present assessment is a block assessment it is a well settled proposition of law that the block assessment proceedings should be made only on the basis of seized material. Thus the tax authorities are justified in rejecting the claim of availability of agricultural income, when the said claim was not substantiated with any evidence. In the absence of agricultural income, the sources for the excess cash outflow could not be proved, hence CIT(A) was justified in confirming the assessment of Rs.6,28,882/- as the undisclosed income of the assessee. Against assessee. Plea for treating the above said amount of Rs.6,28,882/- as loss from business and consequently has sought for set off of the same against other income assessed as undisclosed income - additional ground - Held that - The said claim of the assessee is liable to be rejected as the amount represents expenditure incurred out of undisclosed sources and what was assessed is not the expenditure, but the quantum of undisclosed sources . The cash outflow from undisclosed sources cannot be considered as a business loss, as claimed by the assessee. Also the undisclosed source was determined on the basis of transactions pertaining to a part of year, i.e, for the period from 03-09-2000 to 14.11.2000. The profit or loss of any business concern accrues only as on the last day of the financial year and accordingly, the excess cash outflow in the form of expenditure cannot be considered as a business loss. Against assessee. Deduction u/s 158BB(C)(1) claimed - Held that - A careful perusal of the said provision would show that such a deduction is permissible on the basis of entries as recorded in the books of accounts and other documents maintained in the normal course on or before the date of search . However, in the instant case, both the tax authorities have given a finding that the assessee herein did not maintain any books of accounts. Thus the assessee is not entitled to seek deduction as per the provisions of clause (c) of subsection (1) of sec. 158BB. Against assessee.

Issues:
1. Assessment of cash balance found at the time of search.
2. Assessment of unexplained investment in gold biscuits.
3. Assessment of excess of expenses over receipts.
4. Adjustment of excess of expenses against other income.
5. Exclusion of income for assessment years 1994-95 to 1999-2000 from undisclosed income.

1. Assessment of Cash Balance:
The appellant contested the assessment of a cash balance of Rs.1,30,000 found during a search operation, claiming it belonged to his brother. However, the authorities rejected the claim due to lack of evidence and documentation prior to the search date. The appellant failed to prove the transaction was recorded earlier. Consequently, the CIT(A) upheld the assessment as undisclosed income, which the Tribunal deemed justified based on the lack of substantiating evidence.

2. Assessment of Unexplained Investment in Gold Biscuits:
The appellant surrendered a portion of the unexplained investment in gold biscuits but claimed the balance was received from his brother. Despite the appellant's explanations, the authorities found no documentation or records supporting the claims made. The absence of proper records, coupled with discrepancies in the explanations provided, led to the confirmation of the assessment by the CIT(A) and subsequently by the Tribunal.

3. Assessment of Excess of Expenses Over Receipts:
A notebook containing cash transactions revealed a significant excess of expenditure over receipts. The appellant attributed this to agricultural income, which was not substantiated with evidence. The authorities noted the lack of documentation and rejected the claim of agricultural income. The Tribunal upheld the assessment of the excess expenditure as undisclosed income due to the absence of proof regarding the sources of the cash outflow.

4. Adjustment of Excess Expenses Against Other Income:
The appellant sought to treat the excess expenditure as a "loss from business" and set it off against other undisclosed income. However, the Tribunal rejected this claim, emphasizing that the excess cash outflow from undisclosed sources could not be considered a business loss. The Tribunal clarified that undisclosed sources were assessed based on a specific period and could not be offset as business losses.

5. Exclusion of Income for Assessment Years 1994-95 to 1999-2000:
The appellant argued for the exclusion of income from certain assessment years below the taxable limit from undisclosed income. However, as the appellant failed to maintain any books of accounts, the authorities denied the deduction as per the relevant provision. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that without proper documentation, the appellant could not claim the exclusion based on the provisions cited.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessments made by the authorities regarding the cash balance, unexplained investment, excess of expenses, and the exclusion of income for specific assessment years from undisclosed income. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining proper documentation and evidence to support claims in such cases.

← Previous Next →