2018 (10) TMI 189 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - Undisclosed bank transactions - trading transactions of its regular course of business - Held that - It is an admitted fact that the assessee had not disclosed the transaction reflected in the two bank accounts, the details of which are given in the earlier paragraph and the total transactions of which comes to ₹ 29.26 crores. AO rejected the offer of 0.30% given by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and estimated the income from such undisclosed transaction on account of cheque discounting at 3% of the total transactions. The assessee has filed certain decisions to substantiate that the profit element in such type of business varies from 0.15% to 0.25%, however, the fact remains that the assessee himself has offered profit of 0.30% before the AO which was rejected by him who estimated such income at 3%. Therefore, the question is that what percentage should be adopted for such transactions which remain undisclosed to the department in the instant case. The offer by the assessee appears to be too low and profit estimated by the Assessing Officer also appears to be on the higher side if we consider such rate of profit in the light of the various decisions cited before us. Adoption of 0.5% as net profit on such undisclosed transactions outside the books, in our opinion, will meet the ends of justice. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of 'undisclosed bank transactions' as 'trading transactions of its regular course of business'.
2. Sustaining the estimated addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) at a net profit (NP) rate of 3% of total undisclosed bank transactions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Treatment of 'Undisclosed Bank Transactions' as 'Trading Transactions':
The assessee argued that the undisclosed bank transactions were part of a cheque discounting business, earning only commission income, and not trading transactions. The AO, however, treated these transactions as part of the assessee's regular business trading activities and estimated the income accordingly. The CIT(A) upheld this view, noting that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence to support the claim that these were commission-based transactions. The AO's investigations revealed inconsistencies, such as non-existent vehicles allegedly used for transportation, further discrediting the assessee's claims.

2. Sustaining the Estimated Addition at 3% NP Rate:
The AO estimated the net profit at 3% of the undisclosed bank transactions amounting to ?29.26 crores, resulting in an addition of ?87,78,850 to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld this estimation, rejecting the assessee's argument for a lower commission rate of 0.30%. The Tribunal considered various precedents where profit rates in similar cheque discounting businesses ranged from 0.15% to 0.25%. However, given the facts and the assessee's own admission of a 0.30% profit rate, the Tribunal found the AO's 3% estimation excessive. Instead, the Tribunal deemed a 0.5% profit rate as just and reasonable, adjusting the addition accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, modifying the profit rate on undisclosed transactions from 3% to 0.5%, thus reducing the addition to the assessee's income. This decision balanced the need for a fair estimation while acknowledging the precedents and the assessee's admissions. The judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence in disputes over the nature of undisclosed transactions and the reasonable estimation of income therefrom.