2016 (5) TMI 46 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of undisclosed net profit - difference in sales turnover - Assessment u/s 153C - Held that - There was a bonafide mistake committed by the assessee in filing the original return of income of AY 2008-09 filed on 27.07.2009 which was rectified by it by filing revised return on 30.09.2009 even before receiving the notice u/s 153C dated 18.01.2010. Return of Income for AY 2009-10 declaring a total income of ₹ 4,75,47,402/- was filed on 30.09.2010 on the same day when the revised return of income was filed for AY 2008-09. The Assessing Officer simply relied upon the statement of third party recorded on 17.07.2009 during the search in the case of Royal group and on the basis of unaudited statements found with the third party. He has not challenged the audited accounts filed by the assessee along with the Return of Income. He has also not excluded the same sales proceeds in AY 2009-10, which amounts to double taxation of the same amount of income relatable to same sales proceeds. In view of above, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration on account of difference in sales turnover in unaudited accounts and audited accounts, particularly when the assessee had already offered corresponding income in AY 2009-10 and assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C by the same Assessing Officer. Thus, the addition was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). These factual and reasoned findings of the CIT(A) need no interference from our side - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admission of additional evidences without opportunity to AO
2. Deletion of addition made on account of undisclosed net profit
3. Upholding the addition of undisclosed net profit
4. Request to set aside CIT(A) order and restore AO's order

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admission of additional evidences without opportunity to AO
The Revenue challenged the admission of additional evidences by the CIT(A) without providing the Assessing Officer (AO) an opportunity to offer comments, citing a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) admitted reconciliation details and break-up of total constructed areas without consulting the AO. The Revenue contended that this action was improper and against procedural rules.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition made on account of undisclosed net profit
The Revenue objected to the deletion of an addition of ?7,62,04,530 made by the AO on the basis of undisclosed net profit. The CIT(A) had removed this addition after considering additional evidences presented by the assessee. The Revenue argued that the deletion was incorrect and the addition should have been upheld.

Issue 3: Upholding the addition of undisclosed net profit
The Revenue insisted that the CIT(A) should have upheld the addition of ?7,62,04,530 as undisclosed net profit. They contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting this addition based on the additional evidences provided by the assessee. The Revenue sought the restoration of the AO's order in this regard.

Analysis of Judgment:
The case involved a partnership firm engaged in the business of redevelopment of slums under a government scheme. A search action revealed discrepancies in the income declared by the assessee. The AO made an addition of ?7,62,04,530 based on differences in income declarations. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee after considering additional evidences related to sales turnover and construction costs.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not identified any faults in the assessee's audited accounts and had relied primarily on a statement recorded during the search. The Tribunal analyzed the details of the constructed areas, sales proceeds, and closing stock to determine that the assessee had rectified a genuine mistake in its income declarations. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not contested the audited accounts filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO was unwarranted as the assessee had rectified the mistake before receiving the notice under section 153C. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, emphasizing that there was no justification for double taxation of the same income. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the genuine mistake rectified by the assessee and the lack of justification for the addition made by the AO. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence and ensuring fair treatment in tax assessments.