9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 694 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69B - Tax levied u/s. 115BBE - excess gold and silver jewellery stock found at the business premises - whether Excess stock found in the business premises of the assessee during Survey is Business Income or Income from other sources u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE - HELD THAT - As decided SHRI SURESH VASUDEV VERNEKAR 2023 (2) TMI 598 - ITAT BANGALORE relying on M/S CHOKSHI HIRALAL MAGANLAL case 2011 (8) TMI 1341 - ITAT AHMEDABAD in the recorded statement, the assessee had declared that the undisclosed stock was generated from the business income. After that the revenue had not made any queries to prove that the said investment is in nature other than business. Only on the basis of the legal view, the identity of the items cannot be changed. In referred case, the ld. DR is trying to prove that the investment in jewellery was out of income from other sources. But the assessee is the trader of jewellery and nature of investment was out of income generated from business. No contrary judgment was placed by the ld. DR against the submission of assessee. We fully rely on the orders of Ragavs Diagnostic Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (9) TMI 584 - ITAT BANGALORE . Accordingly, the application of 69B on the assessee is not warranted. So, the tax levied by the revenue on the assessee u/s. 115BBE is liable to be rejected. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the excess stock found in the business premises during the survey amounting to Rs. 3,02,400/- is business income or income from other sources under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. 2. Levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Excess Stock as Business Income or Income from Other Sources The primary contention revolves around whether the excess stock found during the survey should be classified as business income or income from other sources under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the stock was part of the business and should be treated as business income. The learned assessing officer, however, classified this as unexplained investment under Section 69A, which pertains to money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles not recorded in the books of account, and for which the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation. The assessee contended that Section 69A requires two conditions to be fulfilled: (a) the existence of unrecorded money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles, and (b) no satisfactory explanation from the assessee about the nature and source of acquisition. The assessee claimed to have satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the stock and argued that the use of the term "may" in Section 69A indicates discretion, not compulsion, in deeming such items as income. The Tribunal referenced similar cases, including the ITAT Bangalore's decision in the case of Ragavs Diagnostic & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, where it was held that the additional income offered cannot be taxed under Section 115BBE if the source of the expenditure was business income. The Tribunal also cited the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench's decision in M/s. Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal vs. DCIT, which concluded that the difference in stock should be taxed under the head 'business' if it represents undeclared business income. The Tribunal, taking a consistent view with these precedents, ruled that the excess stock should be considered as business income and not as unexplained investment under Section 69A. Consequently, the application of Section 69A and the tax levied under Section 115BBE were deemed unwarranted. Issue 2: Levy of Interest under Section 234B and 234C The assessee also contested the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C, arguing that the rate, period, and quantum of interest were not clearly discernible from the assessment order. The assessee maintained that the levy was not in accordance with the law and that they were not provided with the basis and method of calculation for verification. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue but noted the assessee's right to seek waiver of interest with the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Director General. Conclusion The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, ruling that the excess stock should be treated as business income and not as unexplained investment under Section 69A. The related tax levied under Section 115BBE was rejected. The issue of interest under Sections 234B and 234C was acknowledged but not extensively addressed. Order Pronounced The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with the order pronounced in the open court on 6th February 2023.
|
