TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT affirms jurisdiction under sec 158BC for undisclosed income; directs reevaluation based on comparable cases</h1> <h3>M/s Vinsri Infotech, Hyderabad. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 9 (1), Hyderabad. And (Vice-Versa)</h3> M/s Vinsri Infotech, Hyderabad. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 9 (1), Hyderabad. And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Invocation of jurisdiction under section 158BC of the I.T. Act.2. Determination of undisclosed income.3. Estimation of net profit and allowable expenses.4. Inclusion of income for assessment years prior to the search.5. Consideration of comparable cases for income estimation.6. Imposition of penal interest under section 158BFA(1).Detailed Analysis:1. Invocation of Jurisdiction under Section 158BC:The assessee challenged the invocation of jurisdiction under section 158BC of the I.T. Act. However, the CIT(A) dismissed this ground, and the ITAT upheld the jurisdiction under section 158BC, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this issue.2. Determination of Undisclosed Income:The initial assessment determined the income at Rs. 3,45,66,400/-. After the assessee's application under section 264, the assessment was revised to Rs. 11,19,27,240/-. The ITAT directed the AO to recompute the undisclosed income considering comparable cases. The AO later determined the total undisclosed income at Rs. 2,86,72,896/-, which was amended to Rs. 4,94,91,508/- to rectify apparent mistakes.3. Estimation of Net Profit and Allowable Expenses:The AO estimated the income from the business at 30% of the receipts, considering the expenditure on books as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) revised the net profit ratio to 9% based on the GIAN JYOTHI JOURNAL, which reported an average net profit of 11.47% in 2001. The CIT(A) allowed the expenditure on books and other expenses, reducing the assessed undisclosed income to Rs. 3,01,38,613/-.4. Inclusion of Income for Assessment Years Prior to the Search:The assessee contended that the income for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2002-03 should not be included as undisclosed income since returns were filed in time before the search. The ITAT directed the AO to verify if the returns for these years were filed and to exclude the disclosed receipts from the total receipts considered for undisclosed income.5. Consideration of Comparable Cases for Income Estimation:The AO and CIT(A) did not accept the comparable cases provided by the assessee, which showed losses or minimal profits. The ITAT found that the AO failed to bring on record any comparable cases and directed the AO to recompute the undisclosed income by considering the net profit offered by the assessee on its unaccounted turnover.6. Imposition of Penal Interest under Section 158BFA(1):The assessee requested the removal of penal interest imposed under section 158BFA(1), arguing that the returns in the block assessment were filed within the timeframe and the date of filing return for the year 2003-04 had not expired when the search took place. The CIT(A) did not specifically address this issue in the final order.Conclusion:The ITAT directed the AO to recompute the undisclosed income by:- Reducing the receipts disclosed in the returns of income for AYs 1999-2000 to 2002-03.- Considering the actual figures of unaccounted cash receipts for AY 2003-04.- Estimating the net profit on unaccounted receipts at the rate offered by the assessee in its returns of income.The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 04th December 2019.
TaxTMI 