2013 (12) TMI 772 - AT - Income Tax

Suppression of commission income - Held that - The assessee had declared gross commission income for RTO liaison work - No details related to such commission incomewere furnished before the Assessing Officer - The Assessing Officer was justified in estimating the income but such estimation appears to be on the higher side - The assessee had filed the return for the first time in response to notice u/s.153A(a) declaring income of Rs.66,520/- which includes Rs.20,850/- commission for RTO liaison work - The estimation has been restricted to Rs. 24000/- - Partly allowed in favour of assessee. Opening cash balance - Held that - The opening balance of Rs.5,51,321/- also consisted of cash of Rs.1,25,726 - The appellant has not given any evidence to the effect that this cash actually has been brought forward from the earlier year - This cash has surfaced in the period relevant for A.Y. 2002- 03 for the first time - Cash represents unexplained income of the appellant for A.Y. 2002-03 - The addition of Rs.1,80,750/- on account of opening balance is restricted to Rs.1,25,726 - Partly allowed in favour of assessee. Unexplained investment - Held that - The assessee has deposit of Rs. 10,000 in Mahesh Sahakari Bank - In view of the addition of commission income and cash available the addition should not be made - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of commission income for RTO liaison work.
2. Addition of unexplained cash balance from earlier years.
3. Addition of commission income and unexplained investment for another assessment year.

Issue 1: Addition of Commission Income for RTO Liaison Work (A.Y. 2002-03):
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs.9,150 to the commission income, arguing that no incriminating material was found during the search, thus the Assessing Officer had no basis to reject the declared income. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of evidence provided by the appellant but deemed the estimation of income at Rs.30,000 to be excessive. Consequently, the addition was reduced to Rs.3,150, considering the circumstances. The Tribunal differentiated this case from a precedent cited by the appellant, emphasizing the unique facts and timing of the income declaration. The appeal on this ground was partly allowed.

Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Cash Balance from Earlier Years (A.Y. 2002-03):
Regarding the addition of Rs.1,80,726 as unexplained cash balance, the appellant contended that the cash was withdrawn from the bank on various dates. However, the Tribunal found the explanation improbable and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to Rs.1,25,726. The Tribunal reasoned that the cash withdrawals did not sufficiently explain the entire cash balance, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal on this ground.

Issue 3: Addition of Commission Income and Unexplained Investment (A.Y. 2006-07):
For the assessment year 2006-07, the appellant challenged the addition of Rs.27,900 to commission income and Rs.10,000 for an unexplained investment. The Tribunal, following a similar case from the previous assessment year, reduced the estimated commission income to Rs.18,000, sustaining a difference of Rs.5,900. Additionally, the Tribunal found the addition of Rs.10,000 for unexplained investment unwarranted due to previous additions in other years exceeding this amount. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the Rs.10,000 addition. Both appeals by the appellant were partly allowed for this assessment year.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of addition of commission income and unexplained cash balances for multiple assessment years, considering the evidence provided, the timing of income declarations, and the reasonableness of estimations made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld some additions while reducing others based on the specific circumstances of each case.