9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 777 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of income - profit on unaccounted sales - incriminating material against the assessee AOP - CIT-A estimating the income at 12.5% basing on the unaccounted sales arrived at by the AO - main contention of the assessee is there is no evidence in the seized material did not contain any evidence to show that the assessee AOP had received sale consideration over and above the amount mentioned in the books of accounts - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the impugned document does not contain the name of the assessee AOP and there is no evidence to establish that the AOP had received on money beyond the sale consideration mentioned in the documents. It is also an admitted fact that the AO has not specified the assessment year and the incriminating evidence related to the assessment year. During the course of search proceedings, the AOP premises were also searched, but they have not seized any incriminating material to establish that the assessee AOP has received sale consideration by way of on money beyond the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. In this case, admittedly the AO has not examined the purchasers, to establish whether the purchasers have paid any on money beyond the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed - revenue failed to establish that the assessee AOP had received sale consideration over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the books of accounts. CIT(A) is also erred in estimating the profit at 12.5% on the addition made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material against the assessee AOP - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice issued under Section 153C. 2. Validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer (AO). 3. Estimation of income based on unaccounted sales. 4. Evidentiary value of seized documents. 5. Validity of the addition made by the AO. 6. Estimation of profit by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. 7. Maintainability of the revenue's appeal based on tax effect. Summary: 1. Legality of the Notice Issued Under Section 153C: The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 153C was bad in law and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal observed that the AO failed to indicate the assessment year and incriminating evidence specific to the assessment year, thereby not meeting the legal requirements to initiate proceedings under Section 153C. 2. Validity of the Assessment Made by the AO: The assessee argued that the assessment made by the AO was invalid as the satisfaction was not assessment year specific and incriminating evidence specific. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not specify the assessment year and incriminating evidence related to the assessment year, making the assessment invalid. 3. Estimation of Income Based on Unaccounted Sales: The AO made an addition of Rs.1,60,41,171/- as undisclosed income based on seized documents. The CIT(A) estimated the profit on unaccounted sales at 12.5%. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to show that the assessee received sale consideration over and above the amount mentioned in the books of accounts. 4. Evidentiary Value of Seized Documents: The assessee contended that the seized documents were rough estimates and did not carry any evidentiary value. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the documents did not contain any description, author, or signature, and were therefore considered "dumb documents" with no evidentiary value. 5. Validity of the Addition Made by the AO: The AO added Rs.1,60,41,171/- as undisclosed income based on the seized handwritten books. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide any credible evidence to support the addition and did not examine the purchasers to establish whether they paid any on money beyond the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. 6. Estimation of Profit by the CIT(A): The CIT(A) estimated the profit on unaccounted sales at 12.5%. The Tribunal found this estimation to be erroneous in the absence of any incriminating material against the assessee AOP. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made in the hands of the assessee AOP. 7. Maintainability of the Revenue's Appeal Based on Tax Effect: The revenue filed an appeal with a reported tax effect of Rs.52,09,794/-, which was later found to be Rs.49,87,701/-, below the threshold limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and dismissed the cross appeals filed by the revenue. The order pronounced on 16th March 2023 directed the AO to delete the additions made in the hands of the assessee AOP.
|
