Tribunal partially allows appeal, citing lack of evidence and violation of natural justice

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the findings of the Pr. CIT related to the invocation of Section 69A and Section 115BBE due to lack of material evidence and violation of natural justice principles. However, it sustained the directions for examining the rate of gross profit on the unaccounted turnover, remanding the matter to the AO for further verification and decision as per law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Applicability of Section 69A read with Section 115BBE on undisclosed income.
3. Examination of unaccounted turnover and its tax treatment.
4. Opportunity of hearing and principles of natural justice.
5. Limitation and delay in filing the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act:
The appeal challenges the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263, which held that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Pr. CIT argued that the AO did not properly inquire into the applicability of Section 115BBE read with Section 69A regarding the undisclosed turnover surrendered before the Central Excise Authorities. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed verified the books of accounts and the income disclosed by the assessee, thus the order was not erroneous.

2. Applicability of Section 69A read with Section 115BBE on undisclosed income:
The Pr. CIT held that the undisclosed stock of Rs. 1,77,95,858/- should be taxed under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE, disallowing the benefit of unabsorbed depreciation/loss. The Tribunal noted that Section 69A applies to money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles, and since no such items were found, only loose slips indicating unaccounted sales were discovered. Therefore, invoking Section 69A was inappropriate. The amendment to Section 115BBE(2), effective from AY 2017-18, was also not applicable to the assessment year in question.

3. Examination of unaccounted turnover and its tax treatment:
The Tribunal examined whether the AO's acceptance of the gross profit rate of 3.11% on the undisclosed turnover of Rs. 1,77,95,858/- was erroneous. It was established that only the profit embedded in the unaccounted sales could be taxed, not the entire turnover. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in DCIT vs. Panna Corporation and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Hariram Bhambhani, which supported taxing only the profit element in unaccounted sales.

4. Opportunity of hearing and principles of natural justice:
The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr. CIT must provide an opportunity of hearing before recording findings that render the AO's order erroneous. The findings related to undisclosed investment in stock under Section 69A were recorded without providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut, violating the principles of natural justice. Thus, these findings were set aside.

5. Limitation and delay in filing the appeal:
The Tribunal noted an 18-day delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned after considering the affidavit filed by the assessee, allowing the appeal for adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the findings of the Pr. CIT related to the invocation of Section 69A and Section 115BBE due to lack of material evidence and violation of natural justice principles. However, it sustained the directions for examining the rate of gross profit on the unaccounted turnover, remanding the matter to the AO for further verification and decision as per law.

---