2023 (7) TMI 12 - AT - Income Tax

Estimating the suppression of sales - Addition @ 200% by extrapolation based on the evidence available for 3 months - evidence was found during the course of survey indicating the suppression of sales - HELD THAT - In the absence of evidence indicating about the suppression of sales @ 200% of the sales return by the assessee and its ground concerns as well as any statement recorded from the responsible persons about the suppression of the sales for the entire year as found for the first three months of the financial year, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly apportioned the amount of suppression among the four assessees and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the total income determined which has been considered as the undisclosed income of the assessee and its group concerns. GP around 20 to 32% in the same line of business in respect of any other assessees has nothing to do in the present case. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to estimation of undisclosed income based on suppression of sales, validity of extrapolation method, calculation of gross profit on undisclosed sales, delay in filing appeal, and apportionment of undisclosed income among multiple assessees.

Estimation of Undisclosed Income:
The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the estimation of suppression of sales at 200% based on extrapolation. The Revenue argued that evidence of suppression was found for previous years and the extrapolation was justified. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that estimation without corroborative evidence is not prudent. The CIT(A) apportioned the suppressed income among the assessees based on gross profit, leading to a reduced undisclosed income of Rs. 50,828.

Validity of Extrapolation Method:
The Revenue contended that the extrapolation method used by the Assessing Officer was logical due to continuous suppression of sales by the assessee. The CIT(A) disagreed, emphasizing the lack of evidence for extrapolation and the need for matching undisclosed income with assets or expenditures. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.

Calculation of Gross Profit on Undisclosed Sales:
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition to Rs. 50,828 instead of Rs. 1,47,12,564, arguing that the assessee did not prove corresponding unaccounted purchases. The CIT(A) based the apportionment on the gross profit admitted by the assessee, leading to the reduced addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The Revenue's appeal was delayed by 19 days, but the delay was condoned as the Revenue showed sufficient cause. The appeal was admitted for adjudication after the delay was condoned.

Apportionment of Undisclosed Income:
The CIT(A) correctly apportioned the suppressed income among the assessees based on evidence found during the survey. The Tribunal upheld the apportionment and the deletion of the balance addition made by the Assessing Officer, as there was no evidence supporting the 200% suppression claim for the entire year. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the estimation of undisclosed income, the validity of extrapolation method, and the apportionment of suppressed income among the assessees. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee was deemed infructuous and dismissed.