2023 (5) TMI 277 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules for assessee in assessment years 2017-20, rejecting Revenue's cross-appeals.

Hasini Infra Constructions and Developers Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajahmundry. And (Vice-Versa)

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing their appeals for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The Tribunal directed the ... Suppression of receipts - Income from the additional works - Estimation of profit @ 8% by the Ld. CIT(A) as against the estimation of profit made by the Ld. AO @ 12.5% - only contention of the Revenue is that since the additional works are carried out through the employees of the assessee, therefore the Revenue considered it as diversion of turnover of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find from the arguments put forth by the Ld. AR as well as the material placed before us, there are two different agreements entered into by various customers ie., one for the sale of flat and another agreement is for carrying out the additional works. It is also clearly demonstrated and established by the Ld. AR that the customers have directly made the payments to the contractors as per the additional works agreement. We find that since the customers have directly made the payments to the contractors for the additional works carried on by them and either the receipts or payments have not been passed through the assessee’s books of account, it cannot be considered as a turnover of the assessee. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, we are inclined to delete the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) on the differential amount sold by the assessee and direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition partially sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO).2. Validity of the addition based on incriminating material.3. Adoption of uniform rate for turnover estimation.4. Estimation of net profit on unaccounted turnover.5. Rejection of books of accounts.Summary:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO)The assessee argued that the AO lacked jurisdiction as the addition was based on incriminating material found in third-party premises. However, this issue was not adjudicated since other grounds were decided in favor of the assessee on merits.Issue 2: Validity of the Addition Based on Incriminating MaterialThe AO made additions based on incriminating material found during a search operation. The assessee contended that the additions were made on 'mere dumb documents and rough notings' without evidentiary value. The Tribunal found that the AO relied on documents without details of receipts and failed to justify the uniform rate of Rs. 3,400/- per sq ft. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had no material justification for the addition and directed the deletion of the addition partially sustained by the CIT(A).Issue 3: Adoption of Uniform Rate for Turnover EstimationThe AO adopted a uniform rate of Rs. 3,400/- per sq ft for estimating turnover, which the assessee contested. The Tribunal found that the assessee entered into two agreements with customers: one for the sale of flats at Rs. 2,000/- per sq ft and another for additional works. Payments for additional works were made directly by customers to contractors, not through the assessee's books. The Tribunal ruled that the AO erred in adopting the uniform rate and directed the deletion of the addition.Issue 4: Estimation of Net Profit on Unaccounted TurnoverThe CIT(A) directed the AO to tax the balance of Rs. 1,400/- per sq ft at an estimated profit rate of 8%, relying on a precedent. The Revenue contested this, arguing for a 12.5% rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no justification for the AO's higher rate and noting that the additional works were directly paid by customers to contractors.Issue 5: Rejection of Books of AccountsThe AO rejected the assessee's books of accounts, alleging suppression of receipts. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide substantial evidence for rejecting the books and adopting the higher turnover rate. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s approach.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for AYs 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, deleting the additions made by the AO. The Revenue's cross-appeals were dismissed, as the Tribunal found no basis for the higher profit estimation or the rejection of the books of accounts.