2004 (3) TMI 316 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Outcome: Assessments adjusted, income disclosures considered, partners' payments deletion upheld

HOTEL KUMAR PALACE. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.

HOTEL KUMAR PALACE. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - TTJ 093, 629, Issues:1. Addition of Rs. 19,150 on account of trading results for the block period.2. Addition on account of catering income.3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,50,802 on account of salary and interest paid to partners.Issue 1: The first issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 19,150 on account of trading results for the block period. The assessee voluntarily declared undisclosed income of Rs. 1,50,000 but also disclosed Rs. 19,150 as income in the regular return. The Assessing Officer included this amount in the block income, leading to an appeal. The Tribunal found that the income of Rs. 19,150 was determined with reference to seized material meant for normal disclosure. As the return was filed under section 139(1) before the due date, the Tribunal held that this income should not have been included in the block assessment. The Tribunal cited a relevant case to support this decision. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee should succeed on this ground, and the order was made accordingly.Issue 2: The second issue concerns the addition on account of catering income. During the search, diaries revealed unrecorded income from catering business. The Assessing Officer estimated further income leakage based on a statement and disclosed income. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance, leading to cross-appeals. The Tribunal noted that the estimate was based partly on evidence and partly on conjectures. Considering the disclosed income, the Tribunal upheld the reduction by the CIT(A) to Rs. 50,000, dismissing both grounds.Issue 3: The final issue involves the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,50,802 on account of salary and interest paid to partners. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, but the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance based on a provision modified from April 1, 1999. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the action was in line with the relevant provision, and therefore, this ground of appeal was not allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, addressing all the issues raised in the cross-appeals comprehensively and providing detailed reasoning for each decision.