2014 (2) TMI 375 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment of professional income - Held that - The assessing officer did not rely upon any material while making addition in respect of possible commission the assessee could have obtained during the assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 - The agency commission is always a fluctuated matter and depends upon the commission on receipts for arranging a particular contract - In the absence of any material to indicate that the assessee had derived such commission and it was concealed, it is not open for the assessing officer to make an assessment based on notional figures - The appellate authorities have arrived at a conclusion that the addition was improper - Both the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer on presumptive basis and without any supporting materials - The order of Tribunal is confirmed - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against common assessee for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03.
2. Justification for interfering with estimated assessment of professional income.
3. Treatment of agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the revenue against the common assessee for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's common order was challenged by the revenue.

2. The assessing officer calculated the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02 at Rs. 16,08,000/- based on previous year's assessment and unexplained investments. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided in favor of the assessee, and the appellate orders were confirmed on appeal by the Revenue. The primary issue raised was the justification for interfering with the estimated assessment of the professional income of the assessee for the mentioned assessment years.

3. In the assessment year 2002-03, similar facts led to the assessing officer fixing the total income at Rs. 12,08,000/-. The revenue raised questions regarding the treatment of agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources, questioning its reasonableness and legality.

4. The assessing officer's basis for estimating income lacked supporting material and relied heavily on presumptions. The appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal found no evidence to support the additions made by the assessing officer. The Tribunal confirmed that the additions were improper as they were made on a presumptive basis without any substantiating materials.

5. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the assessing officer did not have sufficient grounds to assess the professional income based on notional figures without concrete evidence. The Tribunal's conclusion that the additions were unjustified due to lack of supporting materials was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed accordingly.