2020 (8) TMI 118 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - CIT(A) estimation at 3% as against estimated by AO as 5% of the credit entries in the bank account of the assessee, the assessee estimated the income at 1% - HELD THAT - Assessee might have carried out the business of providing credit entries to various parties and by entering into dubious transactions, he earns commission. There is no record kept by him, how much commission he has earned and he offered only 1% of the total cash deposits whereas ,AO applied the profit rate of commission at the rate of 5% and CIT(A) estimated at 3%. In all probabilities there has to be an estimate as the assessee is unable to give list of beneficiaries, so that, correction commission can be estimated. Profit rate estimated by CIT(A) seems reasonable but still a more reasonable value can be taken and hence, restrict the disallowance at 2%, direct the Assessing Officer to compute the income after taking into consideration the profit rate at 2% of the cash credit entries as deposited in the bank account, I direct the Assessing Officer accordingly. Both the appeals of this issue are partly allowed. Addition of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - HELD THAT - Main plea of the assessee that there are cash withdrawals from the bank of ₹ 6,68,550/- as against which cash deposit made is ₹ 6,60,250/-. This needs verification. As now assessee is not present, let this issue be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the issue. Needless to say, that the assessee will file the details of bank withdrawals and will co-relate with the cash deposit made in the bank account. In term of this, this issue is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Unexplained cash credit - CIT(A) allowed the benefit of the income determined of commission added at 3% and thereby restricted the addition at ₹ 2,53,290/- - HELD THAT - Departmental Representative supported the order of CIT(A) but from the orders of the lower authorities it is clear that only the pending balance and cash explained are not in the chart giving the details of cash withdrawals along with date wise cash deposit in corporation bank. That this needs verification at the level of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the matter is remitted back to his file for fresh verification. Needless to say that the assessee will provide all the details before the Assessing Officer. Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - None of the details are emerging in the order of CIT(A) as regards to name, source of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor. Unless and until these details are available, it is very difficult for me to adjudicate this issue at this level. Hence, this issue is also remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the provisions of section 68. Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Estimation of income by CIT(A) at 3% vs. 5% by the Assessing Officer and 1% by the assessee.
2. Addition of unexplained cash deposit.
3. Treatment of loans from family members as unexplained cash credit.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Estimation of Income:
The first common issue pertains to the estimation of income by CIT(A) at 3% of the credit entries in the bank account of the assessee, whereas the Assessing Officer had estimated it at 5%, and the assessee had declared it at 1%. The CIT(A) justified the 3% estimation based on the lack of evidence provided by the assessee to support the claim of earning only 1% commission. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to provide a list of beneficiaries of the accommodation entries or any substantial evidence to back the 1% commission claim. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, found the 3% estimation by CIT(A) reasonable but further reduced it to 2%, directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income accordingly.

2. Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposit:
In ITA No.1839/Mum/2019, the issue involved the addition of unexplained cash deposit of ?4,58,250/- confirmed by CIT(A) as against ?6,60,250/- added by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) accepted part of the assessee's explanation regarding cash withdrawals and deposits but treated ?4,58,250/- as unexplained. The Tribunal noted the need for verification of the cash withdrawals and deposits and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, instructing the assessee to provide the necessary details.

In ITA No.1840/Mum/2019, the issue was the addition of ?2,53,290/- as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition of ?4,30,800/- but allowed the benefit of the income determined at 3%, reducing the addition to ?2,53,290/-. The Tribunal found that the details provided by the assessee were insufficient and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

3. Treatment of Loans from Family Members:
The third issue in ITA No.1840/Mum/2019 concerned the addition of ?3,44,875/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) had confirmed this addition due to the lack of evidence regarding the source and creditworthiness of the loans from family members. The Tribunal noted the absence of necessary details such as the names and sources of the creditors and their creditworthiness, making it difficult to adjudicate the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the provisions of section 68 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine and verify the issues related to unexplained cash deposits and loans from family members, while adjusting the estimation of income to 2% of the cash credit entries.