2025 (8) TMI 1681 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue appeal dismissed; undisclosed commission addition limited to 0.10% of turnover based on sworn statement and precedent

DCIT, Central Circle-4 (4), Kolkata Versus NS Broking Private Limited

ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s reduction of an undisclosed commission addition to 0.10% of turnover and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal accepted ... Addition in respect of undisclosed commission income to 0.10% of the total turnover - relevancy of statement recorded on oath in which it was admitted that commission was @2% - HELD THAT:-We find that the ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO and also confronted the same with the assessee, who filed rejoinder to the said remand report. CIT(A) upon perusal of the remand report as well as rejoinder noted that in the statement recorded during the course of Mr. Sanjay Bansal had stated that they used to receive commission in the range of 0.05% to 0.15% which is extracted in para 6.2 of the appellate order. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aryav Securities Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (11) TMI 1390 - ITAT KOLKATA] wherein the AO initially charged the commission @2% but it was reduced to by the ld.CIT(A) to 0.01% on the basis of statement of deponent of M/s Aryav Securities Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an addition to income based solely on a statement recorded under Section 131/133A (survey) admitting commission at 2% of net premium can be upheld where the deponent later retracts and other portions of the statement indicate commission in the range of 0.05%-0.15%. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer's estimation of undisclosed commission income at 2% of net premium is sustainable where books are produced showing commission recorded and the assessee disputes the arbitrariness of the 2% rate. 3. Whether the appellate authority and the Tribunal may adopt a lower benchmark rate (0.10% of turnover) for estimating undisclosed commission income based on internal statement excerpts and a coordinate-bench judicial decision, rather than the AO's 2% computation. 4. Whether reliance on a coordinate-bench decision reducing an AO's estimate (from 2% to 0.10%) is permissible precedent to guide quantification in the present factual matrix. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Reliance on statement recorded during survey (Section 133A/131) versus subsequent retraction and internal inconsistency Legal framework: Statements recorded under Section 131 (and material recovered/recorded during a survey under Section 133A) are admissible for assessment purposes but must be weighed with other evidentiary material; mere recording does not ipso facto determine the quantum without corroboration. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal and appellate authority applied established approach of scrutinizing survey-recorded statements in light of retraction, surrounding admissions and other parts of the same statement rather than treating a single assertion as conclusive. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that while an initial recorded statement admitted commission at 2%, the same deponent's statement also contained a specific admission that commission earned was in the range of 0.05%-0.15% ('5 to 15 paisa per 100 Rupees'). The appellate authority confronted the remand report with the assessee's rejoinder and noted retraction by a related deponent. Given the internal inconsistency and retraction, the Court found the AO's reliance on the 2% figure to be arbitrary and not adequately corroborated by other material. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a recorded statement contains inconsistent admissions and a retraction, an AO must not mechanically adopt the highest figure from the statement without assessing internal consistency and corroborative material. Conclusion: The AO's exclusive reliance on the 2% figure from survey statements is unsustainable in the presence of internal statement portions indicating commission at lower rates and retraction; the statement must be read holistically. Issue 2: Double taxation and reliance on books of account showing commission entries Legal framework: Additions must avoid double taxation; if taxable income has already been recorded and offered to tax in books, AO must justify why an additional estimate is necessary and ensure it does not tax the same receipts twice. Precedent Treatment: The appellate authority considered the assessee's contention that commission was reflected in books and that a further addition would result in double taxation; the AO was required to address this contention in remand report and to demonstrate why entries in books were insufficient or unreliable. Interpretation and reasoning: The AO did not adequately respond to the assessee's explanations and the rejoinder asserted that the remand report failed to counter submissions. The Tribunal and CIT(A) found that the AO's generalized reliance on survey statements without addressing booked entries or showing impermissible concealment of those booked commissions rendered the 2% addition excessive. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where books show commission receipts and the assessee explains treatment, the AO must specifically address and rebut such explanations before making an additional estimate to avoid double taxation. Conclusion: The AO's addition at 2% without proper consideration of books and the assessee's explanations was not justified; the AO's failure to deal with double taxation argument undermined the addition. Issue 3: Quantification methodology - adopting 0.10% of turnover as estimate Legal framework: Where undisclosed income must be estimated, the AO may use reasonable basis and analogous material; appellate authorities may refine estimates if the AO's basis is arbitrary and alternative credible material supports a different rate. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on a coordinate-bench decision where an identical AO's 2% estimate was reduced to 0.10% by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal in ITA No.789/Kol/2023 (coordinate-bench). The appellate order applied that reasoning to the present facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) examined the full recorded statements, remand report and rejoinder and found specific admissions that commission was in the 0.05%-0.15% band. Given that other similar assessments by the same AO in related cases had been adjusted to 0.10% and that the assessee produced material pointing to lower commission, the CIT(A) and Tribunal concluded that 0.10% of total turnover was a reasonable, conservative quantification of undisclosed commission income. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where internal statement excerpts and consistent practice in analogous cases indicate commission materially lower than the AO's chosen rate, appellate authorities may substitute a lower, evidence-supported estimate; adoption of a 0.10% rate on the facts to avoid speculative over-assessment is a binding ratio for this matter. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld reduction of the addition to 0.10% of turnover (Rs. 18,26,971 on turnover of Rs. 182,69,71,560), deleting the balance of the AO's 2% addition as excessive and arbitrary. Issue 4: Use of coordinate-bench precedent to guide quantification Legal framework: Decisions of coordinate benches, while not strictly binding, are persuasive and may be followed where facts and issues are substantially similar and the reasoning is sound. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal expressly relied on a coordinate-bench decision that reduced a 2% AO estimate to 0.10% after analyzing identical or similar survey statements and factual matrix. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the congruence of facts (same modus operandi, similar statements, same AO methodology) and the thorough reasoning in the coordinate-bench decision, the Tribunal found it appropriate to follow that approach in quantification rather than disturb the CIT(A)'s application of 0.10%. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - reliance on a coordinate-bench decision to adopt a consistent, evidence-based rate for estimation is justified where factual parity exists; this constituted a binding consideration for the Tribunal in outcome. Conclusion: The Tribunal appropriately followed the coordinate-bench reasoning and upheld the reduction to 0.10% as a reasoned quantification method in the present circumstances. Overall Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that the AO's blanket addition based on a 2% commission admission in survey statements was arbitrary in light of internal statement admissions (0.05%-0.15%), retraction, lack of adequate rebuttal to the assessee's books/double-taxation argument, and persuasive coordinate-bench precedent; accordingly, the addition was restricted to 0.10% of turnover and the balance deleted. The Tribunal's conclusions are delivered as ratio on the presented facts.