TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to as the "Act"]. 2. Three appeals are filed by the Revenue in case of M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP and three appeals filed by Revenue in case of M/s. M. Poonam Developers (Firm). The various issues raised by the Revenue in these two sets of assessee`s appeals are common and identical, therefore since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts narrated in ITA No. 284/SRT/2022 for AY. 2018-19 have been taken into consideration for deciding these appeals en masse. 3. Although, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections filed by the assessee, contain multiple grounds of appeal, however, at the time of hearing we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by Assessee and Revenue. We find that most of the grounds raised by the Revenue and Assessee are either academic in nature or contentious in nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of the Revenue and Assessee as well. With ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 285/SRT/2022. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by giving direction to tax the 'on-money' receipt as regular business income and not to treat the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the 'on-money' receipts." (iv) Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground No. 1 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 320/SRT/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in re-calculating the total on-money on booking of the flats during the year under consideration to Rs. 1,60,26,408/- as against the 'on-money' calculated of Rs. 9,57,99,600/- by the assessing officer on the basis of incriminating impounded material." (v) Grounds of appeal No. 2 to 5 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 318/SRT/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18, ground Nos 2 to 5 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 319/SRT/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19, and ground N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt order to the extent of sole reliance on the statement recorded during the survey and without considering the evidences produced by assessee. (iv) Assessee craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 5. The grounds raised by the assessee in all cross-objections are similar and identical except variance of amount. 6. All the cross objections filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 3 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We heard the party on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the cross objections for hearing. 7. Now we shall take these above concise and summarised grounds of appeals of Revenue one by one. Summarised and concise ground No. (i) is reproduced below for ready reference: (i) Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by Revenue for AY. 2016-17, in ITA No. 284/SRT/2022, ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue in AY. 201819, in ITA No. 285/SRT/2022, ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by Revenue in AY. 2019-20 in ITA No. 286/SRT/2022. "On the facts and in the circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating documents found and impounded during the course of survey proceedings. There is no dispute with regard to the fact of receipt of 'on-money' from sale of the units. This fact has been admitted by one of the partners of the assessee-firm, Mr. Rajesh Ahir who has categorically admitted and accepted in his statement during the course of survey proceedings that 2 columns against each of the party A and B, out of which column B represents cash i.e. 'on-money' and column A represents cheque. Accordingly, based on the incriminating material found during the course of survey proceedings and also based on the admission made, the actual receipts by the assessee amounting to Rs. 2,61,02,000/- should be brought to tax for the year under consideration. 9. In this connection, the assessee has filed its detailed reply and written submission, which are reproduced below: "Only profit element can be added as against total receipts. 1. Merely on the basis of impounded materials total gross receipts received without taking into consideration the fact that only profit element out of the net receipts is chargeable to tax and not the gross receipts the proposed addition cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o finding nor any material has been referred to about the suppression of investment in acquiring the goods which have been found subject of undisclosed sales." 4. Identically, in the case of CIT Vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja reported vide 302 ITR 63(Guj), it was held as, "Hence, in absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales the finding of the Tribunal that only the gross profit on the said amount can be brought to tax does not call for any interference. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,85,003/- made on account of unaccounted cash sales." 5. In the decision recently decided by jurisdictional ITAT (Surat Bench) in the case of M/s Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO reported vide 2020 TIOL-357-ITAT-Surat, under identical circumstances profit rate @ 6% was adopted and addition was restricted. The Tribunal observed as, "In the light of above discussion, and respectfully following the judgments of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as discussed above and also of Tribunal, we of the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Assessing Officer with somewhat confusingly equated excess consumption of raw material and unaccounted sale of the finished product. It is not as if the excess consumption of raw material would automatically result into matching the value of the excess sale of the finished product. Unaccounted consumption of raw material would be used for manufacturing raw material which process would require, depending on the nature of the product, deployment of manpower and machinery, consumption of electricity and even other ingredients. Essentially, on the basis of the estimation of excess consumption of raw material the possible profit of the assessee would have to be worked out for making actual additions. In this background, we must view the observations of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who while adopting the excess consumption of the unfinished product at 20 per cent of the gross sale applied the gross profit rate of 35 per cent, averaging three year of the gross profit rate in the case of the assessee. Essentially, therefore, on the basis of the available material on record the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has attempted to tax the income of the assessee arising ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt and Tribunals and hence liable to be deleted. 10. Further, where assessee, engaged in construction business, is following project completion method, its income could be brought to tax only in year when sale deeds of units sold were registered even though sale consideration/advance might have been received earlier from buyer. For this proposition, we are relying on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT (Central), Surat v. Happy Home Corporation reported vide [2018] 94 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat). SLP against the said judgment is also dismissed by the Apex Court. 11. In the given case, your honour has alleged on money on ad hoc basis, however it may kindly be noted that some units are not even booked or sold and no amount is mentioned against the same and in some cases only advance amount is received. 12. On the basis of the above detailed submission, the proposed addition may kindly deleted or reduced." 10. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that the cash components (on-money) are not part of the business income and the same has never been disclosed in its books of acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee argued that ld CIT(A) has passed a speaking order after considering findings of the assessing officer and submissions of the assessee, therefore such a reasoned order should be upheld. 14. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The ld CIT(A) noted that it is a fact which is not denied by the assessee that during the course of survey, incriminating material evidencing receipt of on-money relating to the impugned assessment year from project "Orion Villa" amounting to Rs. 2,61,02,000/-were found. The said receipts are in cash which are not accounted in the regular books of account. This has been confessed by Mr. Rajesh Ahir, the partner of the assessee firm. Thus, once the receipt of on-money is accepted the same needs to be brought to tax additionally as the same have not been shown in the books of account maintained by assessee. However, ld CIT(A) observed that the equation arises is whether, such on-money has to be taxed fully or a portion of the on-money has to be taxed as income. The ld CIT(A) noted that in deciding the assessee's case for A.Y 2017-18 on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch are as under: "11. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that Assessing Officer stated that assessee received "on-money" from customers on sale of flats (Villa), the details of the same are as follows: Villa Type No. of Villas Amount of on-money receipt A76 1 44,00,000/- B1 4 46,50,000/- B2 9 1,16,95,000/- B4 9 50,31,000/- Total 2,57,76,000/- The Assessing Officer further mentioned in para No. 5.1 that there is no dispute with regard to the fact of receipt of "on-money" from sale of units. This clearly shows that amount of Rs,.2,57,76,000/- is business receipts, and since these are business receipts therefore these receipts are taxable as per the profit declared by the assessee in audited books of account. These facts have been admitted by one of the partner of the assessee-firm, Mr. Rajesh Ahir, who has categorically admitted and accepted in his statement d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer to compute the net profit @ 8% of the gross receipts. Since we have adjudicated the issue involved in assessee's case, taking into account, the peculiar facts and circumstances, as narrated above, therefore, it is made clear that instant adjudication shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year. 12. In the result, appeal of ethe Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed." 16. The ld CIT(A) analysed the judgment of Jurisdictional ITAT Surat in assessee own case, as mentioned above, and ld CIT(A) noted that it is clear that only 8% of the 'on-money' receipts were treated as income of the assessee by Hon'ble ITAT as against the 20% held by the CIT(A). The ITAT in its order for A.Y 2017-18 in the assessee's own case have held that the rate of 8% is held to be the rate applicable to the assessee on the basis of peculiar circumstances and should not be held as a precedent for any preceding or succeeding assessment years. In the case of the assessee, the assessments have bene made from A.Y 2015-16 to 2019-20, on the basis of survey u/s 133A of the Act and during the course of the said survey, evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in accepting the submission of the assessee that an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was shown in AY. 2016-17 by way of passing journal entry out of the declaration made in IDS 2016 for AY. 2015-16, there cannot be disclosure under IDS 2016 for future unaccounted income to be earned." 19. We have heard both the parties. Facts of the group case have already been narrated by us in the above para No. 8 to 10 of this order. Learned DR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the assessing officer and stated that set off of IDS declaration should not be allowed to the assessee. Whereas, ld Counsel defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). The ld Counsel submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee argued before the ld CIT(A) that he (assessee) has made a declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme of 2016, a total income of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as "sundry business receivables'. The said declaration has been made for A.Y 2015-16 for Rs. 25,00,000/- and A.Y 2016-17 Rs. 75,00,000/-. It was submitted that the assessee has only one project i.e. "Orion Villa" during the entire period of A.Y 2015-16 to 2019-20 and the declaration made by the assessee is towards the receivabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge No. 23 to 26 of Annexure BF-2 in whimsical manner without any evidences supporting the allegations and/or the calculations as to how the yearly figures are derived on the basis of impounded undated dumb documents. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, complete on-money receipts have been added to the total income of the appellant even when it is accepted that amounts found in the impugned documents are gross receipts and not net receipts and hence, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of deduction of expenses. 3. Further, percentage of profit is to be calculated on the basis of past books of assessee or other identical comparable firm of nearby area having same volume of transactions as assessee for same assessment year rather than simply relying on the previous decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal or High Court which is completely unconnected to the assessee having different assessment year, business scale and geographical location compared to that of the appellant. Even in case of assessee for A.Y.2017-18 (ITA No. 15/SRT/2021). Hon'ble this Bench has restricted the addition to 8% of the gross receipts. 4. The appellant is rightly allowed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear." Hence, the Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance clearly says that the income disclosed under the Scheme for an earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transactions in assessment proceedings for subsequent years. So, date of declaration is irrelevant as per circular. In the case of the appellant, declaration has been made under the Income Declaration Scheme of 2016 of total income amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as 'sundry business receivables' for A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appellant has only one project i.e. "Orion Villa" during the entire period of A.Y. 2015-16 to 2019-20 and the declaration made by the appellant is towards the receivables from the said project as appellant does not have any other source of income. The IDS form filed shows that the declaration has been made against the business receivables and the on-money receipts is from the said business and hence, as there is a direct nexus between the income declared in the IDS form and the income for the years under consideration, the appellant is entitled for benefit of receivables declared in IDS, 2016. 8. Appellant also relies on the decision of Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring survey operation the Survey Team had found a total stock of Rs. 4,22,11,880/- lying in the godown as on 17.07.15. The Survey Team had excluded a stock of Rs. 30,30,432/- being disclosed stock as per books of account of Laxmi Cotton Industry. Your Assessee would like to submit that as per impounded books of account of Laxmi cotton Industry bearing identification mark No. BNA/2, Page 1 to 12, the entries was completed only up to 30.06.2015, laxmi Cotton Industry is a partnership firm in which your assessee is a one of the partners. Your assessee would like to state that the godown in which the stocks of his proprietorship concern, M/s.Agarwal Trading Co. and stocks of his partnership firm, Laxmi Cotton Industry are kept and stored in the same godown having 3(three) different and distinct parts by way of brick wall partitions. In one part of the godown, the stocks of the assessee's proprietorship concern are kept and the raw material 7 finished goods of his partnership firm, Laxmi Cotton Industry are kept in the other two parts of the same godown. It is also pertinent to mention here that the impounded books as per BNA/2 were written and completed only up to 30.06.2015. The stock....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Y:15-16 and purchase & sale bills. There was a deficit investment of Rs. 74,14,878.80 in the books of the assessee in comparison to the quantity and value of stocks held by him. Sir, your assessee was reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs. 92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, against which your assessee did not prefer any appeal. Your assessee had capitalized the said sum of Rs. 92,03,181/- in his book of account as per recognized accounting standard and as per various verdict of Courts. Your assessee had also made a disclosure of Rs. 1,09,02,880/- under IDS on account of his undisclosed business income. The income of Rs. 1,09,02,880/- so disclosed under IDS had also been capitalized by the assessee in his books of account. All taxes on undisclosed income of Rs. 92,03,181/- and Rs. 1,09,02,880/- have duly been paid from time to time and duly recorded in the regular books of the assessee. Your honour may find in the books of the assessee produced herewith that all the purchases and sales are duly recorded and there was no deficiency of cash or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case law cited by the appellant was different than the fact of the case of the appellant. The appellant before the AO and also at appellate stage has relied on the decision of Calcutta High Court in Balaram Saha us. CIT, I.T. Appeal No. 319 of 2003, dated 19.04.2011. In his case a survey was conducted at appellant's business premises on 09.01.1997 and following impoundments of books and other documents, the assessments for previous assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 were reopened. In asst, year 1995-96 an intangible addition of Rs. 1,43,688/- and in assessment year 1996-97 an estimated addition of Rs. 8,19,704/- (reduced to Rs. 2,84,699/ in appeal) had been made. Both the additions had been made after the date of survey and the Calcutta High Court has allowed the claim of set off of the assessee to explain the discrepancy found in stocks in survey. As the fact of the case of Balaram Saha vs. CIT squarely applies to the case of the appellant in hand, the claim of set-off of Rs. 91,98,488/- is allowed and the addition of Rs. 91,98,488/- is hereby deleted. Ground No. 3: Claim for set-off of Rs. 1,09,02,880/-: The appellant had declared his und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Scheme, the income declared for an earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transactions provided there is a nexus between the income declared and the transactions of the subsequent year. Question No. 12: In answer (b) to question No. 6 of Circular No 17 of 2016 dated 20.5.2016, it has been stated that "person is barred from making a declaration under the Scheme in respect of an undisclosed income in which the survey was conducted". Please clarify? Answer: The clause (b) of answer 6 may be read as "In case of survey operation, the person is barred for making a declaration under the Scheme in respect of the previous year in which the survey was conducted. The person is, however, eligible to make declaration in respect of an undisclosed income of any other previous year". The Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance clearly says that the income disclosed under the Scheme for an earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transactions in assessment proceedings for subsequent years. So, date of declaration is irrelevant as per circular and also as per the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court (C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-, we find that the books of accounts are not rejected by ld. AO and due to some calculation error, the said difference has arisen and as the assessee has shown closing balance as on 18.07.2015 at Rs. 3,01,55,910/- arrived at after considering various details of purchase, sales and expenses prepared after the completion of survey but before finalizing of books of accounts, which are duly audited and also considering the fact that statements given during the course of survey does not carry any evidentiary value as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan & Sons. (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and therefore, ld. AO before declining the claim of the assessee ought to have referred to any discrepancy or defect in the books of account. 16. Since the Revenue has failed to bring out any such fact on record, we hold that no addition was called for undisclosed stock at Rs. 5,02,028/-. Thus, to conclude, we hold that addition for undisclosed stock at Rs. 2,06,08,009/- has rightly been deleted and the finding of ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. Thus, ground Nos. 1, 2 & 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 17. As regards ground No. 3 for undisclosed cash of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Apex Court in CIT vs. S. Khader Khan & Sons. (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) has ruled that survey does not empower any I.T.O. to examine any person on oath and as such statement recorded u/s 133A has no evidentiary value and addition cannot be made merely on the basis of such statement. CBDT Instruction No. 286/2/2003 (Inv), dated 10.03.2003 also directs the lower authority that no addition should be made merely on the basis of statement of the assessee during survey. Further, the ITAT Kolkata in Rohitaswa Das vs. Asst. CIT, ITA No. 1949/Koi/2017, dated 28.08.2019 where claim had been made first time during assessment proceeding that the stock taken during survey operation was not correct as the premise, in which the stocks were found, had been let out by the assessee to other person and the stock in the said premises was not belonged to the assessee. But, the assessing officer had not accepted the retraction made by the assessee during assessment. But, the ITAT relied on the decision of Apex Court in S. Khader Khan & Sons (Supra) and allowed the appeal of the appellant. Now it is well settled position of law that confession made by the appellant during survey is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o tax the 'on-money' receipt as regular business income and not to treat the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the 'on-money' receipts." 24. We have heard both the parties. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that 'on-money' should be taxable under section 115BBE of the Act, as such 'on-money' does not pertain to assessee`s business. On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has been taking stand right from the beginning that 'on-money' was received from the sale of flats and said 'on-money' was received by the assessee during the normal course of business. Moreover, the Income Tax Authorities have recorded the statement of assessee, and in that statement the assessee had stated that he had received 'on-money' from the customers to whom the flats were sold. In addition to this, in the declaration under IDS, 2016 made by the assessee, the assessee has mentioned that he is making disclosure on account of 'onmoney' received or to be received from the customers by selling flats of his particular project. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve heard both the parties. Facts of the group case have already been narrated by us in the above para No. 8 to 10 of this order. Learned DR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the assessing officer. Whereas, ld Counsel defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A).It is a fact which is not denied by the assessee that during the course of survey, incriminating material evidencing receipt of on-money relating to the impugned assessment year from project "Orion Villa" were found. Basically, all the calculation of sale and stock which are made on the said pages are done by taking the rate of Rs. 2200/ per sq. ft. which is on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of survey relating to the project executed by the assessee -LLP and on the basis of whatsapp images. This material and evidences showed the receipt of on-money on the bookings of flats/shops which were not shown in the regular books of accounts maintained. Thus, once the receipt of 'on-money' is accepted, which is evident from the incriminating material the same needs to be brought to tax additionally as the same have not been shown in the books of accounts maintained. We note that assessing office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd ground Nos. 2 to 5 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 320/SRT/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20. "The Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 9,57,99,600/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted 'on-money' to Rs. 24,03,961/- i.e. net profit @ 15% on the total re-calculated on money receipts of Rs. 1,60,26,408/- (15% of Rs. 1,60,26,408) without appreciating the fact that the partner of the sister concern firm M/s Poonam Developers admitted the receipt of money and failed to substantiate the claim of unaccounted expenditure incurred warranting set off of such expenses from the 'on-money' receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not considering the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jay Builders vs ACIT, 33 taxmann.com 62 (Guj.) and CIT(A) further erred in misinterpreting the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Poonam Developers (sister concern of the assessee)." 30. We have heard both the parties. Facts of the group case have already been narrated by us in the above para No. 8 to 10 of this order. Learned DR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the assessing officer. Whereas, ld Counsel defended the order passed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2,06,20,800/- are deleted. This ground of appeal is partly allowed." 31. The ld CIT(A) also noted that M/s M Poonam Developers (sister concern of the assessee LLP) had filed appeal against the said order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2017-18 before the Hon'ble ITAT, Surat Bench. The Revenue also filed the appeal against the said order of CIT(A). The Hon'ble ITAT, Surat Bench on the facts and circumstances of the M/s M Poonam Developers (sister concern of the assessee LLP) held that only 8% of the on-money receipts should be brought to tax as income of the assessee- firm and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The findings of the Hon`ble ITAT Surat Bench are as under: "11. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that Assessing Officer stated that assessee received "on-money" from customers on sale of flats (Villa), the details of the same are as follows: Villa Type No. of Villas Amount of on-money rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wherein the rate of profit accepted in earlier years was adopted. Further it is the net profit and net income which has to be added and not the gross profit since indirect expenses are also incurred in the business. Lord Macnaghten, in the case of London County Council v. Attorney-General 1901 AC 26, 35-6(HL),4 TC 265, 293 stated as follows: "Income Tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income. It is not meant to be a tax on anything else. It is one tax, not a collection of taxes essentially distinct." Therefore, net profit is taxable income. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the net profit @ 8% of the gross receipts. Since we have adjudicated the issue involved in assessee's case, taking into account, the peculiar facts and circumstances, as narrated above, therefore, it is made clear that instant adjudication shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year. 12. In the result, appeal of ethe Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed." 32. Thus, ld CIT(A) held that from the above analysis it is clear ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../sale of residential units, the assessee must be taking in fact higher on-money on commercial units. Accordingly, the assessing officer applied market rate as the basis for calculation of 'on-money' receipt. The incriminating material found relating to on-money is only with reference to residential units and not the commercial units. This aspect was raised by the assessee before the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings, but the assessing officer did not accept the contention of the assessee. Based on these facts, ld Counsel contended that ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. 36. We have considered the submission of ld DR and ld Counsel for the assessee. As regards the quantification of on-money receipt on commercial space is concerned, the same is not on the basis of any impounded / incriminating material found during the course of survey. The said estimation is done by the assessing officer purely on presumption that higher on-money the assessee has been receiving on commercial space when the evidences of on-money were found with reference to the residential space. Accordingly, the assessing officer has applied the market rate of commercial space....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated for the sake of brevity. We note that addition of Rs. 30,96,480/- is part of 'on-money', received by assessee and considering the facts that said money may belong to assessee, therefore we confirm the order of ld CIT(A) and dismiss assessee`s cross objection No. 13/SRT/22. 40. In the result, the assessee`s cross objection No. 13/SRT/22, is dismissed. 41. In Cross-Objections Nos. 12 and 14/SRT/2022, the assessee has raised similar and identical grounds of appeal, which are as follows: "(i) On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming assessment order to the extent of wrongly relying upon the whatsapp chats and loose papers found at the premises during the course of survey and extrapolating the amount in random manner. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in partly confirming assessment order to the extent of confirming addition of profit on the basis of documents impounded during the survey proceedings without considering that it was only some rough calculation and not the proof of actual transaction taken ....