2004 (9) TMI 357 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Decisions: Advance Tax, NRI Gifts, DVO Valuation, Flat Purchase - Key Takeaways

The ITAT allowed one appeal and partly allowed others in a case involving block assessments. It held that income covered by advance tax should not be ... - Issues:1. Treatment of advance tax as undisclosed income for block assessment.2. Addition on account of commission payment on NRI gifts.3. Cost of construction of 'Kailash Apartments'.4. Addition for the purchase of a flat at Silver Palace Road, Bangalore.Analysis:Issue 1: Treatment of advance tax as undisclosed income for block assessmentThe appeals involved assessees whose income covered by advance tax was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer (AO) during block assessment. The assessees argued that income covered by advance tax cannot be considered undisclosed income for block assessment, citing relevant case laws. The ITAT, referring to judgments by various High Courts, held that income covered by advance tax and income below the taxable limit should not be included in undisclosed income for block assessment. The ITAT directed the AO to recalculate undisclosed income considering advance tax payments and basic exemptions as provided in the Income Tax Act.Issue 2: Addition on account of commission payment on NRI giftsIn cases involving commission on NRI gifts, both parties agreed to limit the commission to 2% instead of the initial estimate of 5% by the AO. The ITAT directed the AO to recalculate undisclosed income by restricting the commission to 2% for all assessees under consideration.Issue 3: Cost of construction of 'Kailash Apartments'Regarding the cost of construction of 'Kailash Apartments', the AO adopted a valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) without providing reasons, despite the assessee's objections. The ITAT, relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, held that the AO lacked the power to refer the matter to the DVO for estimating construction costs. The ITAT further emphasized that block assessments cannot be based on material gathered post-search, ruling in favor of the assessee.Issue 4: Addition for the purchase of a flat at Silver Palace Road, BangaloreIn the case of the purchase of a flat, the AO made an addition based on the difference between the admitted payment by the assessee and the actual payment received by the builder. The ITAT, after reviewing the builder's accounts, found that the difference was only Rs. 87,000, not the initially assumed Rs. 1,75,000. Therefore, the ITAT directed the AO to recalculate the undisclosed income, restricting it to Rs. 87,000 on this issue.In conclusion, one appeal was allowed, and others were partly allowed based on the ITAT's findings and directions on the various issues raised by the assessees in relation to the block assessments conducted by the AO.