2025 (12) TMI 543 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed survey income held business receipts from flat sales, not unexplained cash credits under Sections 133A, 68

ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee-LLP's appeal, holding that the undisclosed income detected during survey u/s 133A represented cash sales of flats, ... Addition u/s 68 v/s business income - undisclosed income in the form of cash sales found during the course of survey operation u/s 133A - HELD THAT:- Conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) is wrong as the entire income was from sale of flats which was business of the assessee and was also admitted fact by the lower authorities. When the same was so accepted, the income has necessarily to be assessed as business income whether or not the same was included in the turnover or not. In our opinion the assessee has wrongly included the amount of expenses in the computation of income since the same was already spent as cash expenses towards construction of the sold flats. If the said amount was included in the turnover, the same amount was to be shown as expenses in the debit side. Assessee has neither included the said amount in the turnover nor debited the said amount as expenses in the profit and loss account. The result was the same and the income remained the same. Since however the amount was disclosed, the assessee did not claim the amount as expenses, yet the aforesaid amount was offered for assessment by including the same in computation of total income. There was no cash credit of the said amount in the books so as to be assessed u/s 68. As in the case of Lovish Singhal [2018 (5) TMI 1646 - ITAT JODHPUR] is also cited wherein number of judgements on the issue have been relied on. The amount contested by the department was added as income from other sources whereas the assessee himself declared he same as income from business. The assessee is LLP and the maximum normal rate on LLP was 30% and also u/s 115BBE the rate was 30% during the assessment year in question. Hence there the entire exercise is tax neutral. Assessee appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether delay of 159 days in filing the appeal by the assessee deserved condonation on the grounds explained. 1.2 Whether the sum of Rs. 4,21,39,900/- found during survey as cash advances against sale of flats, together with related cash expenses of Rs. 1,35,40,555/-, was assessable as business income or as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE. 1.3 Whether only the net sum of Rs. 2,85,99,365/- credited in the books could be treated as business income and the balance of Rs. 1,35,40,535/- (offered directly in the computation) could be subjected to section 115BBE. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing appeal Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the explanation tendered by the assessee for the delay of 159 days in filing the appeal. The reasons were found to be bona fide and genuine. The Revenue objected to condonation, but no material was shown to dislodge the assessee's explanation. Conclusions: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. Issue 2: Characterisation of survey disclosure of Rs. 4,21,39,900/- as business income vs. unexplained cash credit under section 68 / section 115BBE Legal framework (as discussed): The Tribunal proceeded on the basis of sections 68, 115BBE, and the presumption under section 292C regarding the truth of contents of documents found during survey under section 133A. Interpretation and reasoning: The survey revealed documents showing cash receipts of Rs. 4,21,39,900/- as advances against sale of flats and cash expenses of Rs. 1,35,40,555/- towards construction of flats, both outside the books. The key person of the group admitted the amount as undisclosed income on account of cash received as advances against booking of flats. The assessee credited only the net amount of Rs. 2,85,99,365/- (cash receipts minus cash expenses) in its books as additional turnover and offered the balance Rs. 1,35,40,535/- directly in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer, despite noting that the income arose from advances against sale of flats, reduced the disclosed amount from business income and added it as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE. The Tribunal held that the entire amount of Rs. 4,21,39,900/- was on account of sale of flats, which was the assessee's regular business. The impounded papers themselves showed that the receipts were advances against sale of flats, and by virtue of section 292C their contents were presumed true. There was no separate cash credit in the books which could attract section 68. The assessee had, in fact, offered the entire sum as business income, without claiming deduction of the related cash expenses of Rs. 1,35,40,555/-. The manner of presentation-partly through turnover in the accounts and partly by direct addition in the computation-did not alter its true character as business income. The Tribunal relied on the reasoning adopted in decisions such as that of the Mumbai Bench in ACIT v. Rahil Agencies and the Jodhpur Bench in Lovish Singhal, where income admitted as business-related was not recharacterised as income from other sources or unexplained cash credit when its business nature was established. The Tribunal also noted that, for the year under consideration, the tax rate on business income of an LLP and the rate under section 115BBE were both 30%, rendering the attempted recharacterisation tax neutral. Conclusions: The entire amount of Rs. 4,21,39,900/- represented business income from sale of flats and was not liable to be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 or subjected to section 115BBE. There being no cash credit in the books corresponding to this amount, section 68 was inapplicable. Issue 3: Treatment of Rs. 2,85,99,365/- vs. Rs. 1,35,40,535/- and partial application of section 115BBE by the first appellate authority Interpretation and reasoning: The first appellate authority accepted that Rs. 2,85,99,365/-, being the net amount credited in the books, was business income, but treated the balance Rs. 1,35,40,535/- (offered directly in the computation and not routed through the turnover) as income to which section 115BBE applied, on the ground that it was not part of the turnover. The Tribunal found this approach incorrect. It held that once it was accepted that the full Rs. 4,21,39,900/- comprised business receipts from sale of flats, its taxability as business income could not depend on whether it was recorded as turnover in the profit and loss account or offered directly in the computation. If the full receipts and the corresponding expenses had both been routed through the profit and loss account, the ultimate income figure would remain the same; the assessee had instead offered the gross amount as income without claiming the related out-of-books expenses as a deduction. The substance was that the entire amount had been disclosed and offered as business income, and no portion could be singled out for treatment under section 115BBE merely because it was not included in the turnover line item. Conclusions: The finding of the first appellate authority that only Rs. 2,85,99,365/- was assessable as business income and that the balance Rs. 1,35,40,535/- was covered by section 115BBE was set aside. The entire sum of Rs. 4,21,39,900/- was held assessable as business income from sale of flats. The Revenue's appeal challenging deletion of the addition under section 68/115BBE was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection seeking treatment of Rs. 1,35,40,535/- also as business income was allowed.