9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1729 - AT - Income TaxDeemed income u/s.69/69B - Income disclosed in survey action u/s.133A - taxation for discrepancies in the stock of gold and silver - HELD THAT - There was survey action on the assessee and the same resulted in the disclosure of additional income of ₹ 1.25 crores on account of excess stock of gold and jewellery. It is also a fact that the assessee reflected the said income in the profit and loss account while filing the return of income. The requisite taxes were also paid on the said income. We find disclosure of said additional income is closely linked to the excess closing stock of assessee and consequently the business nature of the said additional income. As decided in M/S. SUREKH JEWELLERS 2016 (8) TMI 1140 - ITAT PUNE additional income disclosed by the assessee in the survey action u/s.133A partakes the character of business and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefits of excess remuneration qua the additional income as per the provisions of section 40(b). The excess stock linked additional income partakes not only the character of business profit but the same is eligible, for quantifying the remuneration u/s.40(b) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order of the CIT(A) needs to be reversed. Consequently, the grounds/additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Taxation of additional income disclosed during survey as deemed income under sections 69/69B of the Income Tax Act. 2. Disallowance of remuneration computed under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Classification of excess stock found during survey under the head "Profits and Gains from Business" versus "Income from other Sources". Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxation of Additional Income Disclosed During Survey: The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading gold and silver ornaments, disclosed an additional income of ?1.25 crores during a survey under section 133A due to discrepancies in stock. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this additional income as deemed income under sections 69/69B of the Income Tax Act, rejecting the assessee's explanation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, citing judgments from the Gujarat High Court in Fakir Mohmed Hazi Hasan and the Chattisgarh High Court in Chanush General Stores Vs. CIT. 2. Disallowance of Remuneration Computed Under Section 40(b): The assessee argued that the additional income should be treated as business profits, thereby qualifying for deductions under section 40(b) of the Act, which pertains to remuneration to partners. The assessee cited multiple judgments supporting the view that additional income disclosed during a survey should be treated as business income, thus allowing for such deductions. 3. Classification of Excess Stock Found During Survey: The assessee contended that the excess stock discovered during the survey should be classified under "Profits and Gains from Business" rather than "Income from other Sources." This classification impacts the computation of allowable deductions, including partner remuneration under section 40(b). Tribunal's Findings: 1. Business Nature of Additional Income: The Tribunal acknowledged that the additional income of ?1.25 crores was closely linked to the business's excess closing stock. It was reflected in the profit and loss account, and requisite taxes were paid. The Tribunal found that this additional income should be considered business income, not deemed income under sections 69/69B. 2. Eligibility for Deductions Under Section 40(b): The Tribunal reviewed several relevant cases, including M/s. Surekh Jewellers, where similar facts led to the conclusion that additional income from excess stock discovered during a survey should be treated as business income. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to deductions for partner remuneration under section 40(b). The Tribunal emphasized that business income includes both income from business operations and any additional income disclosed during surveys if it is linked to business activities. 3. Precedent and Legal Interpretations: The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including those from the Pune Bench and the Calcutta High Court, which supported the assessee's position. It distinguished these from the decisions cited by the CIT(A), which treated additional income as deemed income not eligible for business-related deductions. The Tribunal favored the interpretation that aligns with treating such additional income as business income, allowing for the corresponding deductions. Conclusion: The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. It held that the additional income disclosed during the survey should be treated as business income, thereby qualifying for deductions under section 40(b) for partner remuneration. The Tribunal's decision aligns with precedents that support treating such income as part of business profits rather than deemed income under sections 69/69B. Final Order: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on June 29, 2018.
|
