Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions for AY 2014-15 and 2016-17, dismissing Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AY 2014-15 and AY 2016-17, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit on "on-money" receipts, treatment of unexplained cash receipts, and allowance of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation to be reasonable and in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Estimation of profit on "on-money" receipts.
2. Addition of unexplained cash receipts.
3. Treatment of addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE.
4. Allowance of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Estimation of Profit on "On-Money" Receipts:
The Revenue challenged the decision of the CIT(A) to estimate the profit at 20% of "on-money" receipts, arguing that the assessee could not produce evidence for the expenses incurred in relation to the "on-money" receipt of Rs.1,94,75,000/-. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.38,95,000/- (20% of Rs.1,94,75,000/-) without verifying the expenditure incurred against the unexplained cash receipts or calling for a remand report from the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that it is a settled law that only a certain percentage of "on-money" should be considered as income for taxation purposes. The Tribunal cited precedents where similar profit percentages were applied and found the CIT(A)'s estimation reasonable.

2. Addition of Unexplained Cash Receipts:
The AO added Rs.1,94,75,000/- as unexplained cash receipts based on seized documents indicating "on-money" transactions related to the booking of a flat. The assessee contended that the documents were not related to them and that only the profit element should be taxed. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 20% of the "on-money" receipts, which the Tribunal upheld, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

3. Treatment of Addition Under Section 68 Read with Section 115BBE:
The AO assessed an income of Rs.14.85 Crores under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, treating it as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) treated this addition as business income, noting that the income was disclosed based on documents found during a survey and was related to specific projects. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the AO did not provide reasons for finding the assessee's explanation unsatisfactory. The Tribunal found that the additional income disclosed was from business activities and should not be treated under Section 68.

4. Allowance of Carried Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation:
The AO did not allow the set-off of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation against the income assessed under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) allowed the set-off, relying on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT-II vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd., which held that current year losses could be set off against undisclosed income declared in a survey. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in allowing the set-off of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation against the current year's income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for both AY 2014-15 and AY 2016-17, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit on "on-money" receipts, treatment of unexplained cash receipts, and allowance of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation to be reasonable and in accordance with the law.

---