Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>ITAT orders fresh review of undisclosed business profit and capital gains with new evidence under income tax rules</h1> <h3>Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra Versus Deputy Director of Income Tax Circle 41 (1) (1), Mumbai</h3> Shri Kishore Mohanlal Dingra Versus Deputy Director of Income Tax Circle 41 (1) (1), Mumbai - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether the addition of Rs. 14,92,643/- as undisclosed business profit on unexplained cash deposits is justified. Whether the addition of Rs. 31,03,000/- under the head income from other sources on unexplained credit entries in bank accounts is sustainable. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,94,853/- as long-term capital gain arising from cancellation of flat booking is valid. Whether the addition of Rs. 52,361/- under income from other sources on account of difference in interest income requires adjudication. Whether the imposition of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 14,92,643/- as undisclosed business profit on unexplained cash deposits - Legal Framework and Precedents: Under the Income Tax Act, unexplained cash deposits can be treated as undisclosed income if not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. Profit is often computed on such unexplained turnover using the declared profit rate under presumptive taxation provisions (Section 44AD). - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee submitted a fresh working demonstrating that the unexplained cash deposits, when adjusted, result in a negative figure, negating the basis for addition. However, this new explanation was not previously considered by the Assessing Officer (AO) or the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). - Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided a detailed fact sheet with computations excluding certain amounts from the unexplained deposits. The Revenue pointed out non-cooperation during remand proceedings, weakening the assessee's case before the lower authorities. - Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that the new computations and explanations were not examined by the AO, and the assessee was not given an opportunity to present evidence during remand. Principles of natural justice require that fresh explanations be considered by the AO with due opportunity. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on the remand report and non-response of the assessee to notices, while the assessee emphasized fresh submissions and supporting documents. - Conclusion: The issue is restored to the AO for fresh consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard to verify the correctness of the new working and explanations. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 31,03,000/- under income from other sources on unexplained credit entries - Legal Framework and Precedents: Unexplained credits in bank accounts can be treated as income from other sources if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain their nature. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee submitted fresh explanations and supporting documents for each of the four credit entries totaling Rs. 31,03,000/-, which were not considered by the lower authorities. - Key Evidence and Findings: The fresh submissions include documentary evidence supporting the nature of the credits. - Application of Law to Facts: Since the explanations and evidence were not examined by the AO or NFAC, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter for fresh verification and decision. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the need for fresh examination but relied on the previous findings. - Conclusion: The issue is restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee due opportunity to substantiate the nature of the credits. Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 6,94,853/- as long-term capital gain from cancellation of flat booking - Legal Framework and Precedents: Capital gains tax arises on transfer of capital assets. The calculation of long-term capital gain requires verification of cost of acquisition and consideration received. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee produced for the first time confirmations from the builder and related documents concerning the booking and cancellation of the flat, which were not available to the AO earlier. - Key Evidence and Findings: The documents include confirmation letters and payment details supporting the transaction and cost basis. - Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of verifying these documents before finalizing the capital gain computation, ensuring correct application of capital gains provisions. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on the AO's original computation, while the assessee sought re-examination based on new evidence. - Conclusion: The issue is remitted to the AO for fresh consideration after due opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the transaction and cost details. Issue 4: Addition of Rs. 52,361/- under income from other sources on account of difference in interest income - Legal Framework and Precedents: Interest income must be declared accurately; discrepancies can lead to additions. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee did not press this ground of appeal before the Tribunal. - Conclusion: This ground is deemed abandoned and requires no adjudication. Issue 5 & 6: Imposition of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Legal Framework and Precedents: Interest under Section 234A is for delay in filing return; Section 234B relates to default in payment of advance tax. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: These grounds are consequential upon the additions made and require no separate adjudication. - Conclusion: No separate adjudication is necessary on these grounds.