9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 798 - AT - Income TaxAdditions made u/s 69C - Disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee - Held that - Admittedly, these are estimated disallowances made out of expenses that were already claimed in the original return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee has submitted that the assessment years up to 2006-07 fall in the category of concluded assessments, i.e., assessments of those years were not pending on the date of initiation of search. Hence, in our view, the assessing officer could not have made these additions for AY 2004-05 to 2006-07 in the absence of any incriminating materials. Alternative contentions of the assessee also merits acceptance, i.e., the assessee has made additional disclosure of about 20.00 lakhs, which is more than enough to cover the above said disallowances. We accept the alternative contentions of the assessee and hence the additions made by the AO, after accepting the additional disclosure of ₹ 20.00 lakhs, would result in double assessment, since it is stated that the assessee has not capitalised the above said amount in his books of account. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of Ld CIT(A) in respect of the above said issues in all the years cited above and direct the AO to delete the disallowances, referred above. Hence the net result would be that there is no necessity to make any addition u/s 69C of the Act. Even otherwise, we notice that the assessing officer has made the additions u/s 69C of the Act without examining the claim of availability of sources out of drawings made by the assessee and his wife. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue in all the assessment years referred above and direct the AO to delete the impugned additions - Decided in favour of assessee. Suppression of professional fee receipts - Held that - CIT(A) has rightly concluded that the assessing officer did not bring any material on record to support his case of estimation of professional receipts of earlier years. We also notice that the assessing offer has assessed the net profit on the alleged suppressed professional receipts, meaning thereby, the assessing officer has presumed that the assessee would have suppressed corresponding expenses also. Again it is only a guess work only, unsupported by any material. Similarly, the average daily collection estimated by the AO was also mere guess work. In effect, there is no material available with the AO to show that the assessee has suppressed professional receipts as well as expenses in order to substantiate the estimation made by him.Accordingly, we are of the view that the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions in all the years.- Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - If we analyze the facts behind the additional disclosure of about ₹ 20.00 lakhs made by the assessee, we notice that he has voluntarily offered the same and no material was seized during the course of search warranting the additional disclosure. The assessee has duly disclosed the income voluntarily offered by him in the returns of income filed in response to the notices issued u/s 153A of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings also, the assessee has offered the explanation to that effect and the said explanation was not found to be false. During the course of search proceedings, the revenue has noticed/seized all the materials available with the assessee and no incriminating material supporting the additional disclosure was found. Under these set of facts, we are of the view the tax authorities are not justified in presuming that the additional disclosure voluntarily made by the assessee shall constitute concealed income warranting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty levied u/s 271AAA - Held that - There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has disclosed the undisclosed income as his professional income and the same has been accepted by the assessing officer. In fact, the assessing officer has proceeded to estimate the professional income of the preceding years on the basis of the above said disclosure. Thus the assessee has complied with all the three conditions specified in sec. 271AAA(2) of the Act and accordingly, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271AAA(1) of the Act is liable to be deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowances out of expenses claimed by the assessee. 2. Additions under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. 3. Estimation of professional income by the Assessing Officer (AO). 4. Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5. Penalty levied under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowances out of expenses claimed by the assessee: The assessee contested disallowances made out of expenses such as car expenses and telephone expenses for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09. The disallowances made by the AO were confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the car expenses included statutory deductions like depreciation and interest on car loan, which should not have been disallowed. Additionally, the assessee had offered an additional income of Rs. 20 lakhs to cover any deficiencies, which was not capitalized in the books. The Tribunal accepted the alternative contention that the additional disclosure should cover the disallowances, thereby avoiding double assessment. Consequently, the orders of CIT(A) were set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the disallowances. 2. Additions under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act: The AO made additions under Section 69C for various expenses and assets found during the search operations. The assessee argued that sufficient money was drawn for personal purposes, which should cover these expenses. Alternatively, the additional disclosure of Rs. 20 lakhs should suffice. The Tribunal noted that the additional income of Rs. 20 lakhs was a voluntary offer and should be telescoped against the additions made under Section 69C to avoid double assessment. The AO did not examine the availability of sources from drawings made by the assessee and his wife. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the additions under Section 69C. 3. Estimation of professional income by the Assessing Officer (AO): The AO estimated the professional income of the assessee for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08 based on the excess cash found during the search, which was declared as income for AY 2008-09. The AO presumed similar earnings in earlier years and made additions accordingly. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, noting that there was no material evidence to support the AO's inference. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the AO's estimation was mere guesswork without any incriminating material to support the suppression of professional receipts or expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. 4. Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The AO levied penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for additions made under Section 69C and additional income disclosed by the assessee. Since the Tribunal deleted the additions under Section 69C, the penalties on those additions were also liable to be deleted. Regarding the penalty on additional income, the Tribunal noted that the additional disclosure was voluntary, with no incriminating material found to support it. The assessee disclosed the income in returns filed under Section 153A, and there was no difference between returned and assessed income. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c). 5. Penalty levied under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act: For AY 2008-09, the AO levied a penalty under Section 271AAA on the additional offer of Rs. 1.05 crores made during the search. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, stating that the assessee did not disclose the manner in which the undisclosed income was earned. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee disclosed the income as professional income, which satisfied the condition of specifying the manner of earning. The Tribunal referred to similar decisions by other benches and concluded that the assessee complied with all conditions under Section 271AAA(2). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the penalty under Section 271AAA. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and all the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal directed the deletion of disallowances, additions, and penalties as discussed above.
|
