On-money income estimation limited to 25% for 23 specific buyers identified in search proceedings under Section 132

The ITAT Surat upheld CIT(A)'s order limiting on-money income estimation to 25% for only 23 specific buyers whose details were found during search proceedings under Section 132. The tribunal rejected AO's extrapolation of on-money receipts across the entire saleable area of a real estate project, finding no incriminating material or corroborative evidence for remaining buyers. The court emphasized that both receipts and expenditures from seized documents must be considered together when estimating income. Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A) was justified in restricting additions to persons specifically identified in seized materials rather than applying blanket assumptions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of addition on account of unaccounted on-money receipt.
2. Extrapolation of income by the Assessing Officer.
3. Consideration of on-money receipt for specific units versus the entire project.
4. Justification of profit rate applied to on-money component.

Summary:

Issue 1: Restriction of Addition on Account of Unaccounted On-Money Receipt
The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition of Rs. 3,82,25,980/- to Rs. 27,428/- based on unaccounted on-money receipts from the real estate project. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made the addition based on incriminating documents found during search proceedings and admissions by the firm's partner. The CIT(A) found that the AO's estimation of on-money receipt was excessive and not justified.

Issue 2: Extrapolation of Income by the Assessing Officer
The AO extrapolated income in respect of the entire project based on the booking of 23 units, ignoring the fact that the remaining 81 units were sold at a lower rate. The CIT(A) noted that the AO's approach of applying the highest selling price per square foot to the entire saleable area was not justified. The CIT(A) restricted the on-money determination to the 23 units mentioned in the seized documents.

Issue 3: Consideration of On-Money Receipt for Specific Units Versus the Entire Project
The CIT(A) held that the seized documents only contained details of 23 flats in Tower B of the project and thus, on-money should be determined for these 23 flats only. The AO's approach of considering on-money for the entire saleable area was rejected. The CIT(A) prepared a detailed analysis and concluded that the on-money component for the 23 flats amounted to Rs. 4.01 crores.

Issue 4: Justification of Profit Rate Applied to On-Money Component
The AO applied a 25% profit rate to the estimated on-money receipt, which was contested by the assessee. The CIT(A) agreed that the 25% rate was excessive and reduced the addition to Rs. 27,428/- after considering the already declared additional income of Rs. 1 crore by the assessee. The CIT(A) followed judicial precedents and concluded that only the profit component of the on-money should be taxed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no justification for the AO's extrapolation of on-money receipt to the entire project and the application of a 25% profit rate. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to provide corroborative evidence for the entire saleable area and emphasized that only the profit component of the on-money should be considered. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

---