2012 (9) TMI 1136 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal decision on suppressed income for multiple assessment years, partly allowing appeals based on evidence.

Prakash K. Kankariya Versus Jt. Commissioner of Income, Circle-2 (2), C/o. Income Tax Officer, Pune

Prakash K. Kankariya Versus Jt. Commissioner of Income, Circle-2 (2), C/o. Income Tax Officer, Pune - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 as suppressed professional income for AY 1999-2000.2. Addition of Rs. 32,45,485 as suppressed professional income for AY 2000-01.3. Addition of Rs. 21,76,725 as suppressed professional income for AY 2001-02.4. Addition of Rs. 14,30,225 as suppressed professional income and Rs. 10,33,850 towards suppression of investment for AY 2002-03.5. Addition of Rs. 12,69,412 as suppressed professional income for AY 2003-04.6. Addition of Rs. 11,04,743 as suppressed professional income for AY 2004-05.Summary:I. ITA No.87/PN/2011 (Asst. Year 1999-2000):The issue revolves around the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as suppressed professional income. The AO observed that an agreement between the assessee and Shri Doke indicated a cash payment of Rs. 5 lakhs, which was not recorded in the books of account. The assessee argued that the amount was received back and not recorded due to an inadvertent mistake. However, the tribunal upheld the addition, stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate consistent cash balance maintenance and the burden of proof was on the assessee.II. ITA No.88/PN/2011 (Asst. Year 2000-01):The AO made an addition of Rs. 32,45,485 as suppressed professional income, which included Rs. 5,04,600 and Rs. 27,40,885. The AO noted unrecorded transactions and estimated suppressed receipts at 25% of the disclosed income. The tribunal found that the addition should be restricted to Rs. 20 lakhs based on incriminating material, giving relief to the assessee by reducing the addition to Rs. 14,95,400 after considering the already offered Rs. 5,04,600. The tribunal dismissed the plea to bifurcate the receipts between the assessee and his wife.III. ITA No.89/PN/2011 (Asst. Year 2001-02):The AO estimated suppressed professional receipts at 20% of the total receipts, resulting in an addition of Rs. 21,76,725. The tribunal reduced the estimation to 10%, citing the lack of direct evidence and relying on precedents. The tribunal directed the AO to determine the income based on 10% estimated suppressed receipts.IV. ITA No.90/PN/2011 (Asst. Year 2002-03):The tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee and addressed two additions: Rs. 14,30,225 towards suppression of professional income and Rs. 10,33,850 towards suppression of investment. The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,22,850, rejecting the assessee's argument of available cash balance. For the addition of Rs. 14,30,225, the tribunal sustained the addition at 10%, considering the modus operandi and circumstantial evidence. The tribunal allowed the plea for set-off of 10% of the addition sustained for the period from 01-04-2001 to 30-06-2001.V. ITA No.91/PN/2011 (Asst. Year 2003-04):The AO estimated suppressed receipts at 20% of the total operation receipts, resulting in an addition of Rs. 12,96,412. The tribunal directed the AO to sustain the addition at 10% of the total accounted operation receipts, following the reasoning in AY 2001-02.VI. ITA No.92/PN/2011 (Asst. Year 2004-05):The AO made an addition of Rs. 11,04,743 towards suppressed professional receipts based on incriminating evidence found during the search. The tribunal upheld the estimation made by the AO, considering the substantial incriminating evidence and the admitted modus operandi of the assessee.Conclusion:Assessee's appeals for AYs 1999-2000 and 2004-05 are dismissed, while appeals for AYs 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04 are partly allowed.