2024 (1) TMI 18 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - undisclosed income as per the seized hand written books - unaccounted income generated by various entities was used by the assessee as on money component in purchase of properties like land, building and Gold - AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee as to why the difference between the unaccounted income worked on the basis of incriminating material seized admitted in the return of income filed u/s. 153A should not be added to the total income - HELD THAT - AO has merely relied on the seized material but has not corroborated with the additional evidence while calculating the revenue per acre estimated for the business of Aqua Culture by the assessee and its group companies. It is also noticed that Sri VV Balakrishna Rao in his sworn statement has stated that it is a rough version of daily cash receipts and payments which also contains some duplicate entries. It is also an admitted fact that maintaining books of accounts in this line of business (Aqua Culture) which is a non-organized sector, which is further evident from the fact that the CBDT has issued Instruction No. 8/2014, dated 17/10/2014 that the income with respect to Fish Culture in Andhra Pradesh may be decided by committee comprising of Two Commissioners, Two Representatives of Farmer s Association to determine the income that may be estimated for that Financial Year. Therefore, we also find that the AO has estimated the income based on the net receipts calculated as per the seized material and by apportioning it on the basis of the accounted turnover of three entities dealing with Aqua Culture business of Usha Bala Group viz., Usha Bala Agro Farms (P) Ltd, UBK Hotels Resorts (P) Ltd and VBK Exim (P) Ltd. AO has rejected the reply to the show cause notice without assigning proper reasons by merely relying on the estimation without any justification. AO has not given any break-up of the income by deducting the bund area and also the income from Fish Culture with respect to the leased lands. We therefore find that the Ld.CIT (A) while discussing the issue at length in his order has considered the CBDT Instruction No. 8/2014 and also the decision of Krishna Fisheries Vijayawada ( 2017 (8) TMI 655 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ) and has concluded that the additional income of Rs. 74,458/- per Acre disclosed by the assessee is reasonable and in accordance guidelines issued by the CBDT and is also above the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per Acre fixed by the decision in the case of Krishna Fisheries Viajaywada (supra). We also find from the submissions made by the Ld. AR that if the addition is made as per the Ld. AO, the income per acre on an average works out to Rs. 1,20,000/- which is practically impossible in the opinion of the assessee in this trade. From the facts discussed as above, we are of the considered view that since the assessee has offered an amount of Rs. 74,458/-per Acre (net of Bund area), and which is more than the rate per Acre fixed by the jurisdictional Bench, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held and deleted the addition made without any justification / corroborative evidences, by the Ld. AO, and therefore we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thereby dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on seized material.
2. Reliance on CBDT Instruction and jurisdictional ITAT decision by CIT(A).
3. Assessment of income from Aqua Culture activities.
4. Cross objections raised by the assessee.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Additions Made by AO Based on Seized Material
The Revenue filed appeals against the order of the CIT(A) for AYs 2015-16 to 2019-20, challenging the deletion of additions made by the AO. The AO had issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act following a search and seizure operation under section 132. The AO observed that the assessee had indulged in unaccounted cash transactions and made additions based on seized handwritten books, which were claimed to be rough versions of daily cash receipts and payments. The AO rejected the assessee's explanations and concluded that the transactions were systematically entered, indicating undisclosed income.

Issue 2: Reliance on CBDT Instruction and Jurisdictional ITAT Decision by CIT(A)
The CIT(A) found that the AO's basis for working out the undisclosed income lacked clarity and corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) relied on CBDT Instruction No. 8/2014 and the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case of Krishna Fisheries Vijayawada, which provided guidelines for estimating income from Aqua Culture activities. The CIT(A) noted that the income admitted by the assessee was above the estimates made in the Krishna Fisheries case and deleted the additions made by the AO.

Issue 3: Assessment of Income from Aqua Culture Activities
The AO estimated the unaccounted income based on the net receipts calculated from the seized material and apportioned it among three entities dealing with Aqua Culture business. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had not provided any break-up of income by deducting the bund area or income from leased lands. The CIT(A) concluded that the additional income disclosed by the assessee was reasonable and in accordance with CBDT guidelines and the jurisdictional ITAT decision.

Issue 4: Cross Objections Raised by the Assessee
The assessee filed cross objections supporting the CIT(A)'s decision. Since the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, the cross objections became infructuous and were disposed of accordingly.

Conclusion:
The appeals of the Revenue for AYs 2015-16 to 2019-20 were dismissed, and the cross objections raised by the assessee were disposed of. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal concluded that the additional income disclosed by the assessee was reasonable and in line with the guidelines issued by the CBDT and the jurisdictional ITAT decision.