2021 (3) TMI 650 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed income - admission of additional income during the course of survey but did not offer the same in the return of income - CIT (A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT - We find that during the survey proceedings, in answer at question No.18, the assessee had agreed to admit a sum of ₹ 500/- sq. ft prospectively over and above what has been admitted in the return of income by the assessee for the A.Y 2012-13 -Since the learned DR has not been able to rebut these findings of the learned CIT (A) with any facts to the contrary, we do not see any reason to take any other view.Revenue s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of undisclosed profit by the assessing officer.
2. Deletion of the addition by the CIT (A) leading to an appeal by the Revenue.
3. Discrepancy in profit declaration between the Managing Partner's statement and the return of income.
4. Verification of material supporting the Managing Partner's statement.
5. Consideration of facts and evidence in determining the firm's profit for the assessment year.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The assessing officer added undisclosed profit to the firm's income based on the Managing Partner's statement during a survey operation, indicating a higher profit than declared in the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14.

Issue 2: The CIT (A) deleted the addition, prompting the Revenue to appeal. The Revenue argued that the Managing Partner agreed to admit additional income but did not declare it in the return, hence justifying the addition. However, the Counsel for the assessee contended that the Managing Partner's statement referred to a different assessment year, and there was no supporting material found during the survey.

Issue 3: The discrepancy in profit declaration between the Managing Partner's statement and the return of income was crucial. The CIT (A) considered the lack of incriminating material, the audit of books of accounts, and the absence of evidence supporting the higher profit claimed by the assessing officer.

Issue 4: The verification of material supporting the Managing Partner's statement was essential. The CIT (A) highlighted that the statement was not conclusive evidence and lacked merit, evidence, and material to substantiate the higher profit. The absence of corroborative evidence led to the deletion of the addition.

Issue 5: In determining the firm's profit for the assessment year, the CIT (A) emphasized the facts and evidence presented. The CIT (A) concluded that the addition was not sustainable for the relevant year under consideration, as the agreement made in the preceding year did not apply, and there was no basis for the higher profit claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition of undisclosed profit. The Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the CIT (A)'s findings, as the Revenue failed to provide contrary facts. The decision was pronounced on January 20, 2021.