2014 (3) TMI 645 - AT - Income Tax

Addition towards profit on undisclosed turnover Held that - The turnover is reflected in the bank account in the name of the assessee s proprietary concern, with the assessee itself stating it to be on account of his business, representing receipts - The gross profit rate adopted is disclosed by the assessee per its return of income - no material to the contrary has been led by the assessee at any stage Decided against Assessee. Non-disclosure of bank account with BOB Addition u/s 69A of the Act Unexplained credit Held that - Merely because the said account is a savings bank account is not determinative of the matter, more particularly when the account statement states the names of the parties to whom the payments are made, which could have been subject to verification, i.e., in case of doubt, by the Revenue - it is much considered as a part of the assessee s business as any other thus, treating the entire cash deposits as arising from the sale proceeds of his business, as claimed by the assessee - the profit element therein at 16% - also, taking the operating cycle as one month, 1/12 of 84% of the turnover in the said account would be a fair estimate - The addition u/s.69A is confirmed to that extent Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2007-08.
2. Addition to income for suppressed turnover and undisclosed cash deposits.

Analysis:
1. The appeal raised two issues regarding the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant, an individual running a communication center and a partner in another business, disclosed a gross receipt of Rs.36.01 lacs but had deposits of Rs.89.20 lacs in the bank account. The appellant admitted to suppressing turnover, leading to an addition of Rs.8,50,986. Additionally, cash deposits of Rs.16.67 lacs in another bank account were treated as income from undisclosed sources under section 69A. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions based on the appellant's inconsistent statements and non-disclosure of accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the estimation by the Assessing Officer was valid based on disclosed results and upheld the addition of undisclosed cash deposits as income. The appellant challenged these additions in the appeal.

2. Regarding the first issue of gross profit on suppressed turnover, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument as the bank account clearly reflected business receipts, and no contrary evidence was presented. The Tribunal confirmed the addition based on the disclosed gross profit rate. Concerning the second issue of undisclosed cash deposits, the Tribunal observed that the bank account details indicated business transactions, and the savings account was integral to the appellant's business. The Tribunal upheld the addition of profit element at 16% on the cash deposits and directed confirmation of the income accordingly. However, a part of the cash deposit was considered as unexplained income under section 69A, and a fair estimate was made based on the turnover cycle. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim for telescoping the additions, as they were related to different aspects of the undisclosed business income. Ultimately, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming the additions related to suppressed turnover and undisclosed cash deposits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of suppressed turnover and undisclosed cash deposits, upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) based on the appellant's inconsistent statements and non-disclosure of accounts. The Tribunal provided detailed reasoning for confirming the additions and rejected the appellant's arguments for telescoping the additions.