2025 (1) TMI 1007 - AT - Income Tax

Addition towards undisclosed income - rejecting the books of account of the assessee and directing to estimate 18.75% of Net profit on total sales (both accounted and unaccounted and other income) HELD THAT - The profits / income has ultimately been determined at figures which are much more than even the gross sales turnover worked out by Ld. AO. It could never be possible that the assessee has earned income which is much more than its gross receipts. The assessed income for all the AY(s) put together was much more than the accounted and unaccounted turnover as considered by AO. Therefore the working of Ld. AO is clearly illogical and without any rational basis and accordingly the same has rightly been rejected by Ld. CIT(A). The inevitable conclusion would be that the books of the assessee were inaccurate unreliable incomplete and incapable of reflecting the true and correct picture of assessee s financial affairs. The same could therefore be not relied upon to determine the income of the assessee. The assessee failed to reconcile the errors in its books of account. In such a situation the action of Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the books u/s 145(3) is to be upheld. The same was quite logical on the given facts. Therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the books is in accordance with law. We concur with the same. Profit estimation by Ld. CIT(A) - We find that the same is based on average net profit earned by the assessee on regular receipts in all the years. The process of averaging would take care of any abnormal situation and iron out the differences that may be arising in various financial years. Therefore this methodology of estimating the income of the assessee also found our concurrence. The methodology could not be faulted with. We concur with the working made by Ld. CIT(A). Separate additions as made by AO u/s 37(1) or u/s 40A(3) would have no legs to stand. It is quite logical that once the books have been rejected and the income has been estimated on gross receipts no separate addition / disallowances would be warranted. This view is duly supported the cited decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras in CIT v. Amman Steel Allied Industries 2015 (11) TMI 395 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Thus the separate disallowance as made by Ld. AO u/s 37(1) and 40A(3) has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A). Cash found and seized for AY 2021-22 - It is a fact that the assessee has filed return of income in response to notices issued u/s 153A and offered additional income of 26.92 Crores from AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21. The same is much more than the cash found for Rs. 919.50 Lacs. In the absence of any other source of income the benefit of telescoping would be available to the assessee. Therefore the action of Ld. CIT(A) in granting of benefit thereof to the assessee could not be faulted with.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was valid and within jurisdiction.
Whether the approval accorded by the Range Head under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical, rendering the assessment order invalid.
Whether the assessment order was invalid due to the lack of Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by the CBDT Circular No.19/2019.
Whether the additions made towards unaccounted business income and the estimation of business income at a higher percentage were justified.
Whether the disallowances made under Sections 37(1) and 40A(3) were warranted when income was estimated.
Whether the cash seized during the search could be added as unexplained money under Section 69A.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the Assessment Order

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessment was made under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) following a search operation. The validity of such an assessment hinges on compliance with procedural requirements, including jurisdiction and approval under Section 153D.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found no substantial arguments or evidence presented by the assessee to demonstrate any jurisdictional defect or procedural lapse in the assessment process.
Conclusions: The court upheld the validity of the assessment order, dismissing the assessee's claims of jurisdictional defects.

Issue 2: Approval under Section 153D

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153D mandates approval from a higher authority before finalizing assessments post-search.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the assessee did not substantiate claims of mechanical approval with evidence.
Conclusions: The court dismissed the claim of mechanical approval, affirming the validity of the assessment process.

Issue 3: Lack of Document Identification Number (DIN)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: CBDT Circular No.19/2019 requires a DIN for certain communications to ensure authenticity.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court did not find any substantial argument or evidence from the assessee regarding the impact of the missing DIN on the validity of the assessment.
Conclusions: The court dismissed the ground related to the absence of a DIN.

Issue 4: Additions Towards Unaccounted Business Income

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessment involved adding undisclosed income based on seized materials and discrepancies in stock valuation.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found the AO's methodology flawed due to reliance on incomplete records from the 'Z-server' and discrepancies in stock valuation.
Conclusions: The court rejected the AO's additions, favoring estimation based on average net profit rates.

Issue 5: Disallowances under Sections 37(1) and 40A(3)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Disallowances under these sections relate to expenses not incurred for business purposes and cash transactions exceeding prescribed limits.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court, referencing precedents, held that once income is estimated, separate disallowances are unwarranted.
Conclusions: The court deleted the disallowances, aligning with the principle that estimation encompasses all expenses.

Issue 6: Addition of Seized Cash under Section 69A

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A deals with unexplained money, requiring the assessee to explain the source of seized cash.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court allowed the benefit of telescoping, acknowledging the additional income offered by the assessee.
Conclusions: The court deleted the addition under Section 69A, accepting the explanation of the cash being part of the business income.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "When the GP rate is applied, that would take care of everything and there was no need for the AO to make scrutiny of the amount incurred on the purchases by the assessee."
Core Principles Established: The court reiterated that estimation of income should account for all discrepancies and negate the need for separate disallowances.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court upheld the rejection of the books of accounts, favored income estimation based on average net profit rates, and deleted separate disallowances and additions under Section 69A.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of accounts, estimate income based on average net profit rates, and delete separate disallowances and additions related to seized cash. The judgment emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach to income estimation post-search, ensuring that all discrepancies are accounted for without resorting to separate disallowances.

← Previous Next →