2014 (12) TMI 218 - AT - Income Tax

Survey u/s 133A - Addition made on the basis of material found during survey deleted addition of expenses incurred on purchase and renovation of new office deleted - Held that - CIT(A) rightly was of the view that the assessment order is an ad verbatim reproduction of the survey report on this point - there is no basis given in the survey report for estimating the net profit for the entire year on the basis of some rough calculations for one month only - in the survey report, the estimation of net profits by extrapolation has been done for AY 2006-07, and thereafter, the same has been repeated for AY 2005-06 without assigning any reasons whatsoever for doing so the AO was not justified in estimating the net profit revenue could not controvert the factual finding of the CIT(A) - The estimation of profit is not sustainable for the various reasons given Decided against revenue. CIT(A) rightly observed that the assessee has not been able to give any proper explanation in regard to these entries except stating that the black diary was kept only for memory purpose, wherein the entries relating to enquires, ticket bookings and miscellaneous items till the transaction didn t conclude were noted, but on conclusion they were duly entered in the regular books of accounts, and , therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn against the entries jotted in the black diary - While this argument may hold good in respect of the regular business transactions and sundry debtors, it cannot be accepted in respect of the entries written under the narration run-Vishal Khoye Wala, New Office expenses, which, thus, appear to be amounts incurred on new office expenses - The appellant has not been able to show/co-relate these entries with his books of account - The addition in respect of the entries will have to be confirmed as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 32,24,772/- made by the AO based on material found during the survey.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 66.91 lakhs made by the AO based on a black diary impounded during the survey.
3. Jurisdiction under Section 147.
4. Unexplained expenditure under Section 69C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 32,24,772/-:
The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated the net profit for the Financial Year (F.Y.) 2004-05 based on computer sheets found during a survey, which detailed the net profit from ticketing business for July 2005. The AO extrapolated this monthly profit to estimate the annual profit, resulting in an addition of Rs. 32,24,772/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found this method arbitrary and lacking cogent evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the AO ignored the seasonal nature of the travel business and failed to consider the audited accounts and tax audit report. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's estimation was unsustainable and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the AO's estimation was arbitrary and rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 66.91 Lakhs:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 66.91 lakhs based on entries in a black diary found during the survey, which allegedly recorded expenses for purchasing and renovating a new office. The CIT(A) found that the black diary was never made available to the assessee or the AO during the proceedings. The CIT(A) also identified errors in the AO's calculations, including double counting and entries that did not pertain to the relevant assessment year. The CIT(A) confirmed only Rs. 3.83 lakhs as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, deleting the remaining Rs. 63.08 lakhs. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the AO failed to provide the basis for the addition to the legal heirs of the assessee and that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition.

3. Jurisdiction under Section 147:
The assessee contested the AO's jurisdiction under Section 147, arguing that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and based on suspicion. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument, as the primary focus was on the substantive additions made by the AO.

4. Unexplained Expenditure under Section 69C:
The AO had added Rs. 66.91 lakhs as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C based on the black diary entries. The CIT(A) confirmed only Rs. 3.83 lakhs of this amount, citing the lack of proper explanation from the assessee for certain entries related to new office expenses. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee failed to co-relate these entries with the books of account.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the arbitrary additions made by the AO based on insufficient evidence and improper estimation methods. The cross objections by the assessee were not pressed and were also dismissed. The judgment emphasized the need for concrete evidence and proper procedural adherence in making additions to an assessee's income.