2019 (4) TMI 408 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeals Partially Allowed: Income Additions Deleted, Jurisdiction Valid, Interest Charged

Shri. C.L. Chandradhara Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 7 (2), Bangalore.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for the Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1998-99. The additions related to income from the Drama Company and ... Suppressed Income from Drama Company - suppression of turnover - Estimation of profit on adhoc basis - HELD THAT:- The gross receipts as per the profit and loss accounts filed by the assessee, exceeds the total amount as per the impounded material and there is no suppression of turnover in Assessment Years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. Net income from the Drama Company, as a percentage of gross receipts, cannot be as high as has been held by the CIT(A). In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the first round of appeals for these Assessment Years at para 5.4 thereof had come to the conclusion that no addition was called for on this issue. This finding of the Tribunal has not been controverted by the authorities below i.e., by the CIT(A); while sustaining the addition made at on adhoc figure of 50%; as being the earnings of the drama company. Thus in the absence of any comparable case put forth by the authorities below, the additions, even to the adhoc extent upheld by the CIT(A) cannot be justified - decided in favour of assesee Additions on account of Kalyana Mantapa (i.e., income from house property) - HELD THAT:- The assessee has neither received any income / receipt from the Kalyana Mantapa nor has she incurred any expenditure pertaining the same. All donations / receipts were received by Someshwar Temple Committee and the same were expended for temple organisational activity and the Kalyana Mantapa. If at all any addition is to be made, the same ought to have been done based on notional ALU of the property. In my view, the additions made, based on receipts by the Temple Committee, is not correct and therefore delete the addition sustained by the CIT(A) @ 30%, on account of income from Kalyana Mantapa. Consequently, grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. Validity of assessment u/s 147/148 - reasons provided to assessee - No objection filed - HELD THAT:- the assessee had requested for a copy of the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings vide letter dated 05.11.2007; which were communicated to the assessee by the AO vide letter dated 12.02.2008. It is a matter of record that the assessee has not raised any objections in this regard. In the light of the above facts, it is evident that the AO has correctly and validly assumed jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act for commencing proceedings for assessments for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1998-99. Though raised by the assessee, it is seen that there is no violation of the provisions contained in section 151 of the Act. Charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B - HELD THAT:- The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala (2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT) and therefore, uphold the action of the AO in charging the assessee the aforesaid interest u/s 234B of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. Issues Involved:1. Validity of assumption of jurisdiction by AO under section 147/148 of the Act.2. Income from KBR Drama Company.3. Income from Kalyana Mantapa.4. Charging of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Assumption of Jurisdiction by AO under Section 147/148 of the Act:The assessee challenged the validity of the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 for the Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1998-99. The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings were communicated to the assessee, who did not raise any objections. The Tribunal found no violation of section 151 and concluded that the AO correctly and validly assumed jurisdiction. Therefore, this ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.2. Income from KBR Drama Company:The assessee argued that the gross receipts as per the profit and loss accounts exceeded the amount in the impounded material, indicating no suppression of turnover. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the net income percentage from the Drama Company, as assessed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A), was unrealistically high. The Tribunal referenced an earlier Tribunal order which concluded no addition was warranted. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A) on account of income from the Drama Company for the Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1998-99.3. Income from Kalyana Mantapa:The assessee contended that the receipts from the Kalyana Mantapa were collected by a Temple Committee and not by the assessee, who did not incur any related expenses. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the CIT(A) had observed the same in the impugned order. The Tribunal found that any addition should be based on notional Annual Letting Value (ALV) and not on actual receipts by the Temple Committee. Thus, the Tribunal deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on account of income from Kalyana Mantapa for the Assessment Years under consideration.4. Charging of Interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act:The assessee denied liability for interest under section 234B. The Tribunal upheld the AO's action, stating that charging interest is consequential and mandatory as per the Supreme Court ruling in Anjum H. Ghaswala. The AO was directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234B while giving effect to the Tribunal's order.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for the Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1998-99. The additions related to income from the Drama Company and Kalyana Mantapa were deleted, while the validity of jurisdiction under section 147/148 and the charging of interest under section 234B were upheld.