Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 432 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Additions towards cash seized by CGST, Mumbai at Mumbai Central Railway station only on the ground that the partner of assessee took stand that the cash was transported for purchase of property and the assessee failed to disclose the details of such property - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - As per direction of CIT(A), the assessee furnished availability of cash in last three assessment years. CIT(A) also called and verified the availability of cash at three specific branches from where the assessee claimed to have transported such cash i.e. from Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad branches. Such availability of cash is also recorded by ld. CIT(A). CIT(A) after verification of cash available at three specific branches and the history of cash availability in three preceeding assessment years, took his view that the addition on cash seized was not warranted when the assessee has proved the availability of cash balance. Assessee has shown cash balance of Rs. 3.55 crores as on 31/03/2016, Rs. 1.72 crores as on 31/03/2017 and Rs. 2.39 crores as on 31/03/2018. All such figures of availability of cash is not disputed by the AO. In a similar case of Angadia in CIT Vs Patel Natverlal Chinubhai Co. 2012 (9) TMI 1223 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held that when in support of cash seized during search, assessee brought on record its cash book which duly showed that said amount belonged to its particular branch office, amount so seized could not be added to assesses taxable income taking it to be unexplained money. Assessee has shown a taxable income of Rs. 2.30 crores during the year. Before us, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue failed to bring any contrary fact against the availability of cash in hand for preceeding assessment years at various specified branches from where the cash was transported. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order/finding of ld. CIT(A) which we affirm. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. Addition on account of salary expenses, rent expenses, stationary and vehicle expenses - HELD THAT - No addition in earlier or succeeding year was made. The statement of partner was recorded in December, 2020 which perhaps relate to A.Y. 2021-22. AO worked out the addition in a casual manner without reference to any incriminating material or corroborative evidence. The assessee has furnished list of their employee alongwith details of salary and only 68 employees are working and their total salary debited for the year is Rs. 31,07,326/- . On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions. Before us, no contrary fact or evidence or any law is brought to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR except relying on the order of Assessing Officer. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). The addition is made on mere assumption and presumption without any evidence on record. Thus, this part of ground of appeal is dismissed. Addition of rent and stationery expenses - CIT(A) deleted the addition by taking a view that the addition is not based on any evidence. No evidence on unexplained expenditure was found during the search. The ld. CIT(A) thereby deleted both the additions i.e. stationary and vehicle expenses. Before us, except relying on the order of Assessing Officer, no contrary fact or evidence was brought to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR, therefore we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT(A) which we affirm. In the result, ground No. 1 of revenue s appeal is dismissed. Addition of commission expenses - CIT-A deleted the addition partly - HELD THAT - Addition of commission income sustained by ld CIT(A) is not purely based on the incriminating material, rather based on his exercised assumed on presumption that a uniform commissions was earned. We find that the assessee has categorically pleaded that they are charging commissions @ 100/- per lacs transferred/ transported from one place to other place and has shown such commission in their regular books of accounts. Such books of accounts of the assessee is not rejected. Thus, we do not find any justification for addition sustained by the ld CIT(A). As recorded in case of ITO Vs Deepak Vithaldas Suchak 2021 (8) TMI 1028 - ITAT SURAT we have made addition @ 100/- per lacs on cheque discounting business against their plea of Rs. 30 to 40/- per lacs, therefore we find that the assessee has reasonably offered the income in their profit and loss account @ Rs. 100/- per one lacs as commissions income. Hence, the assessing officer is directed to delete the entire additions sustained by ld CIT(A). In the result, ground No. 2 is allowed. Addition on unaccounted/excess commission - CIT-A deleted the addition partly - HELD THAT - CIT(A) despite the fact that the assessee denied any such transaction reflected in the impugned images held that the at the most, it can be treated as cash transferred from one place to another place and maximum can be brought to tax, the commission at the market rate of Rs. 200/- per lacs and worked out the addition to the extent of Rs. 46,436/-. We find that the Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence on record to substantiate such addition. Once the Assessing Officer has accepted the business of assessee as of Angadias/courier services at the most only transaction charges/commission can be added and not the substantial or entire amount allegedly reflected in the images. We find that the ld. CIT(A) taxed the commission income @ Rs. 200 per lacs and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 46,436/-. In our view, the commission added by the ld. CIT(A) does not require any further interference.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68. 2. Validity of Assessment Order. 3. Addition for Alleged Suppression of Commission on Estimated Basis. 4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Salary, Rent, and Vehicle Expenses. 5. Addition on Account of Unaccounted/Excess Commission Income. 6. Restriction of Addition on Unexplained Cash Balance. Summary of Judgment: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68: The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 89,83,700/- added by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained cash credit. The AO based the addition on the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence for the cash transported to Mumbai. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after verifying the cash books and CA certificates from the assessee's branches in Rajkot, Bhavnagar, and Ahmedabad. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had substantial cash balances and the AO did not dispute these figures. 2. Validity of Assessment Order: The assessee argued that the assessment order was time-barred and should be annulled. However, no submissions were made by the assessee's AR, and this ground was dismissed as not pressed. 3. Addition for Alleged Suppression of Commission on Estimated Basis: The AO made additions for suppression of commission income based on estimated figures from seized documents. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 21,55,608/- by considering the commission income outside the books for a specific period. The Tribunal found the AO's addition to be hypothetical and based on assumptions. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the entire addition, accepting the assessee's claim of commission income at Rs. 100 per lakh. 4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Salary, Rent, and Vehicle Expenses: The AO made ad hoc additions for salary, rent, and vehicle expenses based on estimated figures. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, finding them to be based on assumptions without any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not bring any contrary evidence. 5. Addition on Account of Unaccounted/Excess Commission Income: The AO made a substantial addition based on seized documents and estimated commission income. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 3,45,834/- by estimating commission income at Rs. 200 per lakh. The Tribunal found the addition to be based on assumptions and directed the deletion of the entire addition, accepting the assessee's claim of commission income at Rs. 100 per lakh. 6. Restriction of Addition on Unexplained Cash Balance: The AO made an addition of Rs. 17.29 crores based on seized documents showing cash balances in various branches. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 3,45,834/- by estimating commission income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the cash balances were part of the assessee's regular business and could not be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the cash balances and grant suitable relief. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals and partly allowed the assessee's appeals, directing the deletion of additions based on hypothetical and estimated figures, and upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions where appropriate.
|