9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 697 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of income - profit may be taken @8% of the total receipts/ deposits as against the addition made u/s. 68 on account of cash deposit - Held that - In the present case, the assessee has not disclosed the income from the business in her return of income filed for AY 2009-10 and it is only after the AO has unearthed the undisclosed bank accounts and confronted with the facts, that the assessee had disclosed it before the AO. But later in the assessment proceedings bills and vouchers were produced before the AO, although the bills/vouchers do not contain any names etc. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly relied on the Hon ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. President Industries 1999 (4) TMI 8 - GUJARAT High Court and held that it was reasonable that the assessee is taxed at the rate of 8% of gross receipt under section 44AD of the Act. As further find that Ld. CIT(A) has taken into account the fact that the assesssee is a part time businesswoman and this is the first year of her business venture and bills/vouchers were produced. Accordingly, taxable income from business was rightly estimated at ₹ 2,89,150/ by the Ld. CIT(A) which does not need any interference on my part, hence, uphold the same and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of cash deposits in the bank. 2. Application of Section 44AD to treat cash deposits as business receipts and estimate business profit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 68: The Department appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which deleted the addition of ?36,14,384/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had treated the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account as undisclosed income, citing that the assessee failed to substantiate her claim regarding the cash deposits. The AO noted the cash was deposited at different stations across India and was structured to avoid providing a PAN number. The AO concluded that the assessee, who declared only salary income in her return, could not have managed a business involving such extensive operations. Therefore, the AO added the cash deposits as undisclosed income under Section 68. 2. Application of Section 44AD: The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessee's claim that the cash deposits were business receipts from trading in auto tyres, a part-time business activity. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee provided sale/purchase bills and observed frequent cash withdrawals against the deposits, indicating business transactions. The Ld. CIT(A) evaluated three scenarios: - Treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained income under Section 69. - Estimating business profits at 8% of gross receipts under Section 44AD. - Taking the peak cash balance in the bank account as unexplained income. The Ld. CIT(A) found Scenario No. 2, estimating business profits at 8% of gross receipts, to be the most reasonable. This approach was supported by the Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. President Industries, which held that only the profit embedded in the turnover should be taxed, not the entire turnover. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) estimated the taxable income from business at ?2,89,150/-. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee should be taxed at 8% of the gross receipts under Section 44AD. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the business activity only after the AO unearthed the undisclosed bank accounts. However, since bills and vouchers were produced, even though they lacked specific details, the application of Section 44AD was deemed reasonable. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the business income at ?2,89,150/-. Conclusion: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld, confirming the application of Section 44AD to estimate the business income from the cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. President Industries and reasonably estimated the taxable income from business.
|
