TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2018 at the business premises of the assessee who is Proprietor of M/s Shivam Coir Foam Products wherein the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of receivables / debtors. Subsequently, the assessee filed his return of income under section 139(4) on 12/01/2020 at the returned income of Rs. 21,33,420/- including the amount surrendered of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The case of the assessee was thereafter selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was also asked a specific query regarding the amount surrendered during the course of survey and as to how the assessee has done the treatment of the amount surrendered in the books of account as well as to furnish details of the tax payment and to show cause why the amount so surrendered should not be taxed under section 115BBE of the Act. 3. In his submissions, the assessee submitted that he has offered additional income in his P&L Account and have already paid due taxes thereof. It was further submitted that during the course of survey, a diary in the name of the assessee concern had been found containing certain names of individuals, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est that the assessee made such advance out of the source other than what has been stated by the assessee during the course of survey. It was accordingly, submitted that the amount offered as additional income as a result of his business transactions and there is no other source of income and therefore the deeming provisions r.w.s 115BBE are not applicable. It was submitted that the Section 115BBE of the Act is not a charging provision rather than a machinery provision to levy tax on income and it does not enlarge the ambit of Section 68 and 69 etc to create a deeming fiction to tax any sum already offered as income. 5. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered but not found acceptable to the AO. As per the AO, the assessee has not been able to establish nexus between the sundry receivables and his business affairs supported by documentary evidences and it is therefore not a matter of belief as pleaded by the assessee that the department has accepted the quantum but not a source. It was held by the AO that the tax deposited by the assessee as advance tax does not prop up the proposition that his surrender of income has been accepted by the department as the scrutiny....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen they were recorded subsequent to the survey operation. It was accordingly, held that the subsequent transactions were clearly not on record on or before the conduct of the survey operation. It was accordingly held that the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-is to be assessed under section 69 and not under the head business income and the same was accordingly brought to tax as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The submissions made before the AO were reiterated. It was submitted that the impounded documents depict the income earned from business transactions and the statement given at the time of survey confirmed the same, thus the correctness of these documents cannot be doubted. It was submitted that the AO cannot accept the quantum part of income as correct and disbelieve the source of income explained therein. It was submitted that the diary found and impounded constitutes books of account and the transactions recorded therein were also the result of business transactions. It was submitted that the deeming provisions are applicable where the assessee failed to offer any explanation and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of such income generating activity with name and identity, creditworthiness of person with whom such transactions were done alongwith proving the genuineness of the transaction also. Therefore for the unaccounted receivables / debtors found during the course of survey, there can be no presumption to treat the value representing such receivables as application of business income in absence of any evidence of earning that income. Thereafter reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA No. 106 of 2011 dt. 27/04/2011) and various other decisions. It was accordingly held that in the instant case, the assessee has not been able to adduce documentary evidence to establish the nexus between the surrendered income and business income and no source for the surrendered income could be related to assessee's business and therefore the action of the AO in bringing the same to tax under section 69 r.w.s 115BBE was upheld. 8. Against the said findings and the direction of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, brought the amount to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act merely for the reason that at the relevant point in time, when the survey was conducted, the same was not recorded in the books of accounts and the same has been recorded subsequently and such income had been offered for taxation during the course of survey proceedings and thereafter, the said findings have since been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 10. In view of the above, it was submitted that it is evident from the records that during the course of survey of the business premises, no other source of income except business being carried on by the assessee firm was detected and evidently, the source of additional income offered for taxation was found to be from the said business only as duly corroborated by the statement of the assessee recorded by the Revenue Authorities at the conclusion of the survey proceedings. It was submitted that the additional income so surrendered was offered for taxation at the rates applicable at the relevant point in time and which has also been accepted by the authorities while accepting the surrender letter. It was submitted that the AO has not denied this fact and has rather accepted that the discre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of accounts and thus, the necessary nexus with assessee's business has not been established. It was submitted that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the source thereof is from assessee's business activities but he had failed to do so. Hence, the AO was right in invoking the provisions of Section 69 of the Act, in respect of amount so surrendered by way of receivables found during the course of survey at the business premises of the assessee and in support, reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of M/s Kim Pharma vs CIT (supra). 14. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. Recently, we have decided a similar matter in case of Shri Parmod Singla, Prop. M/s Singla Wire & Allied Products vs ACIT (ITA No.516/CHD/2022 dated 24/07/2023), wherein we have discussed the matter in detail including the various authorities quoted at the Bar and it would be relevant to refer to the discussion therein which are equally relevant in the instant case and the same are reproduced as under: "13. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. The genesis of the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. 15. In the instant case, for the deeming provisions of section 69 to be attracted, there has to be a finding that the assessee has made investments during the financial year in the stock and by way of advances, such investments are not recorded in the books of accounts so maintained by the assessee, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation so offered is not found satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. Similarly, for the deeming provisions of section 69A to be attracted, there has to be a finding that the assessee was found to be owner of cash so found at the time survey, such cash has not been recorded in the books of accounts so maintained by the assessee, and the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the said provisions is that the assessee has either failed to disclose the nature and source of such income or the AO does not get satisfied with the explanation offered by him. 15. The perusal of the above relevant part of the Audit Report proposal of the AO and Show Cause Notice issued by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act, would show that all the aforesaid authorities have been swayed by the notion that the income surrendered by the assessee was undisclosed income of the assessee and therefore, the same has to be assessed u/s 68 to 69D, as the case may be, of the Income Tax Act and thereby would be charged to higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. However, as noted above, for an income to be taxed u/s 68 to 69D, as the case may be, it should not only be the undisclosed income but the essential condition is that the assessee has failed to disclose the 'nature and source' of such undisclosed income or that the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory by the AO. In the case in hand, as noted above, the AO duly made enquiries from the assessee as to the nature and the source of the aforesaid surrendered income and has also show caused the assessee as to why....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee was asked about the source of his income and in response, the assessee submitted that he was sole Proprietor of M/s Singla Wire and Allied Products, Patiala and except the said business, he has no other source of income. Further, he stated that he was not partner/Director in any of the firm or company. In Question No. 4 raised by the survey team, he was asked to state the date of commencement of his concern and the nature of activity carried out alongwith details of manufactured products. In response, the assessee submitted that the concern started business in the year 2008 and it is involved in manufacturing of aluminum and copper wires and thereafter, he has given the details of manufacturing process. In Question No. 10, he was asked by the survey team that as per assessee's books of account, there was cash in hand of Rs. 66,400/- however on physical verification, Rs. 10,46,000/- is found from your business premises thus there is excess cash of Rs. 9,80,000/- and the assessee was asked to explain the discrepancy. In response, the assessee submitted that at this point in time, he was not in a position to explain the said discrepancy found in cash and offered the diffe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orship business concern in name of M/s Singla wires and allied products since 2008 wherein he manufactures and sells aluminum and copper wires and all along, the same is his only source of income and thereafter, he has been confronted with discrepancies in terms of cash found excess as compared to what has been recorded in the books of accounts, certain advances relating to his business written in a rough diary and excess value of stock as compared to what has been recorded in the books of accounts. Therefore, we find that the assessee has been confronted with not just the discrepancy so found during the course of survey but the nature and source thereof during the course of survey proceedings and it is clearly emerging that the source of such income is from his business operations. There is a clear statement of the assessee that the advances are related to his business, however since the same have not been recorded in the books of accounts, he has offered the same to taxation. Similarly, the stock physically found has been valued and then, compared with stock as recorded in the books of accounts, thus, there is clear nexus of stock with the assessee's business. The statement of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tract the deeming provisions of section 68, 69, 69A, 69B & 69C is not apparent from the impugned order. Merely stating that excess cash is clearly covered u/s 68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions stated therein are satisfied before the said provisions are invoked. It is like laying a general rule, which to our mind is beyond the mandate of law, that wherever there is a survey and some income is detected or surrendered by the assessee, the deeming provisions are attracted by default and by virtue of the same, provisions of section 115BBE are attracted. The ld PCIT has to record his specific findings as to the applicability of the relevant provisions and how the explanation called for and offered by the assessee is not acceptable in the facts of the present case which is clearly absent in the instant case. Therefore, where the ld PCIT himself is not clear about the applicability of relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he source of gold confiscated was not identifiable and hence adjustment was not permitted. 12. Thus the important aspect that emerges from the entire discussion is that for invoking deeming provisions under sections 69, 69A, 69B & 69C there should be clearly identifiable asset or expenditure. In the present case we find that entire physical stock of Rs. 25,14,306/- was part of the same business. Both kind of stock i.e. what is recorded in the books and what was found over and above the stock recorded in the books, were held and dealt uniformly by the assessee. There was no physical distinction between the accounted stock or unaccounted stock. No such physical distinction was found by the Revenue either. The assessee has repeatedly claimed that unaccounted business income is invested in stock and there is no amount separately taxable under section 69. The department has ignored this claim of the assessee and sought to tax the difference between book-stock and physical-stock as unaccounted investment under section 69 without considering the claim of the assessee that first the business receipt has to be considered and then investment should be treated as coming out of such unaccoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here asset in which undeclared investment is sought to be taxed is not clearly identifiable or does not have independent identity but is integral and inseparable (mixed) part of declared asset, falling under a particular head, then the difference should be treated as undeclared business income explaining the investment. 14. To conclude sum of Rs. 8,10,011/- being difference in stock is represented by undeclared business income. It does not have a separate physical identity. It is to be only taxed under the head 'business'. Other assets have separate physical identity being furniture and fixtures, air conditioners etc. They cannot have a direct nexus with business and therefore investment therein has to be considered under section 69 only." 15. In view of the above, AO is directed to consider the sum of Rs. 8,10,011/- as undisclosed business income assessable under the head 'business' and other two sums under section 69. The business income including application of section 40(b) has to be considered accordingly. For calculation of income in view of our above observations, we restore the matter to the file of AO. 23. In the instant case as well, we find that the difference in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no conflict with the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohd. HajiHasan (supra) where investment in an asset or expenditure is not identifiable and no nexus was established then with any head of income and thus was not available for set off against any loss under any other head. Therefore, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench held that where asset in which undeclared independent identity but is integral and inseparable (mixed) part of declared asset, falling under a particular head, then the difference should be treated as undeclared business income explaining the investment. In the present case the excess stock was part of the stock. The revenue has not pointed out that the excess stock has any nexus with any other receipts. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the decision of the ld. CIT (A) directing the AO to treat the surrendered amount as excess stock qua the excess stock found." 25. Thereafter, the Coordinate Jaipur Benches in case of Bajargan Traders Vs. ACIT (Supra) has similarly held as under: "2.10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. During the course of survey, the assessee has surrendered a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Shri Ramnarayan Birla (supra) supports the case of the assessee in this regard. Therefore, the investment in the excess stock has to be brought to tax under the head "business income" and not under the head income from other sources". In the result, ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed." 26. The said decision of Coordinate Jaipur Benches has since been confirmed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of PCIT vs Bajargan Traders (DB Appeal No. 258/2017 dt. 12/09/2017). 27. Similarly, the Coordinate Chandigarh Benches in case of M/s Gaurish Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) has held as under: "10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. This is a fact on record that the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 70 lacs as additional income during the course of survey conducted at its premises on account of following heads: (i) Discrepancy on account of cash found Rs. 9 lacs (ii) Discrepancy on cost of construction of building Rs. 21 lacs (iii) Discrepancy in stock Rs. 10 lacs (iv) Discrepancy in advances and receivable Rs. 30 lacs 11. These facts have not been disputed by any one at any stage. The only issue to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent case, we can safely infer that apart from cash all other income surrendered may be brought to tax under the head 'business income' while the cash has to be taxed under the head deemed income under section 69A of the Act." 28. Similarly, the Coordinate Chandigarh Bench in case of Famina Knit Fabs Vs. ACIT (Supra) has held as under: "19. In the facts of the case in ITA No.408/Chd/2018, the income surrendered was on account of unaccounted receivables of the business of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1.25 crores. The Ld.CIT(A) in para 9 of the order has outlined the facts relating to the surrender made by the assessee stating that during survey a pocket diary was found from the account section of the assessee company which contained entry of receivables amounting to Rs. 1.25 crores on pages 27, 28, 31 and 33, which were not recorded in the regular books of the assessee and were subsequently surrendered stating that these entries were unaccounted sundry receivables being surrendered as income under the head business, to buy piece of mind and subjected to no penalty and further that the losses incurred by the assessee in the impugned year will be adjusted against this sur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The contention of the Revenue therefore that the income be treated as deemed income u/s 69,69A/B/C of the Act is accordingly rejected and as a consequence thereto the plea that no set off of losses be allowed against the same u/s 115BBE of the Act also is rejected. 22. Therefore, as per the facts of the case in ITA No.408/Chd/2018 and as per the provisions of law relating to the issue, the surrendered income, we hold, was assessable as business income of the assessee and set off of losses was to be allowed against the same as rightly claimed by the assessee. The appeal of the Revenue, therefore, in ITA No.408/Chd/2018 is dismissed. 23. Now coming to the facts of the case in ITA No/1494/Chd/2017, the income surrendered was on account of the following as narrated above in earlier part of our order: (i) investment of Rs. 60 lacs in Kothi at Sukhmani Enclave in the name of Smt. Rekha Miglani; (ii) Sundry creditors and advances received from customers amounting to Rs. 132 lacs; (iii) Gross profit on sale out of books amounting to Rs. 198 lacs and; (iv) surrender to cover miscellaneous discrepancies in loose papers etc. amounting to Rs. 10 lacs. 24. As far as the surrend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld also show that nowhere in the body of the assessment order, the AO has even contradicted this explanation of the assessee. The AO has not brought on record any iota of evidence to demonstrate that the assessee had any other source of income except income from business and, therefore, it is our considered view that deeming such income under the provisions of sections 68 or 69 would not hold good. In our view, in such a situation, the AO could not have legally and validly resorted to taxing the income of the assessee at the rate of 60% in terms of provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 10.18 The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Deccan Jewellers Ltd. reported in (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP) held that where the assessee was engaged in the business of Gold and Diamond jewellery and Silver articles and during the search and seizure operation u/s 132, excess stock was found to be declared and the assessee had submitted that excess stock was result of suppression of profit from business over the years and the same had not been kept identified separately and the AO had duly considered and accepted the assessee's explanation that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT DR has also quoted the same in his arguments before us. However, after going through the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, it is seen that in that particular case, the only issue was with regard to the cash surrendered at the time of survey and no other income. The cash found could not be related to the already disclosed and accepted source of income of the assessee and, therefore, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that such surrendered cash was to be treated as deemed income u/s 69 of the Act. However, in the present case before us, the assessee has only one source of income i.e. business income and nowhere has it been brought on record that the assessee had any other source of income except business income and, therefore, we respectfully state that judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd (supra) would not apply on the facts of the present case. 10.23 Accordingly, keeping in view the various judicial precedents as cited above and respectfully following the same, we hold that the AO could not have legal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may be deemed to be the income of such assessee." In the absence of the explanation / evidence regarding the sources of the additional income being satisfactorily explained by the assessee and applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. C IT (supra), we hold that the additional income offered is deemed income assessable u/s 69A of the Act and no deduction is allowable against such deemed income assessed u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee. Following the ratio laid down by the Gujrat High Court in Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT (supra), once the assessee has failed to explain the nature and source of cash found available with it and the same is assessed as deemed income u/s 69A of the Act, therefore, the corresponding deductions under the head Profits and gains are not available to the assessee. The business loss determined for the year is not allowed to be setoff against such deemed income included in the books of account. The alternative plea of the assessee of assessing the income under the head income from other sources and allowing set off of losses u/s 71 of the Act also fail in view of the above. 9. The learned AR f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly the findings of the Tribunal were affirmed and it was held that no substantial question of law arises and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. We therefore find that the statement of the General Manager as recorded during the course of survey played a decisive role and was taken into consideration by the Tribunal wherein he had admitted that cash has been generated out of income from other sources and in the absence of nature of source of cash being proved, it uphold the order of the CIT(A) and thereafter, on further appeal, the order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. Unlike the said case, in the instant case, as we have noted above, the assessee in his statement recorded during the course of survey has clearly stated that he is running a sole proprietorship business concern in name of M/s Singla Wires and Allied products since 2008 wherein he manufactures and sells aluminum and copper wires and all along, the same is his only source of income and thereafter, he has been confronted with discrepancies in terms of cash found excess as compared to what has been recorded in the books of accounts, certain advances relating to his business written in a rough d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am products and sole proprietor in M/s Shivam Coir Foam Products which is selling Foam products on wholesale and retail basis, and besides that, they have no other source of income/interest in any other business/concern. There were certain discrepancies noticed in respect of M/s Supreme Petro Foam Industry wherein the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs 90 lacs in terms of discrepancy in stock and construction expenses. Further, in respect of M/s Shivam Coir Foam Products, the assessee was asked about the hand-written particulars in terms of certain names and amounts recorded in a diary found during the course of survey and in response, the assessee has submitted that these entries pertain to his proprietorship concern M/s Shivam Coir Foam products, Khanna. It was further stated that these entries are advances/receivables from various persons in respect of his business dealings and were recorded for the purpose of memory. It was further stated that to buy piece of mind, he offers a sum of Rs 15 lacs as additional income for the current financial year subject to no penal action. The same was subsequently reiterated in the surrender letter dated 5/09/2018 wherein the assessee has stated....