TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and therefore the same cannot be assessed u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the binding judicial decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune holding that the excess cash found at the business premises of the assessee in the course of survey needs to be assessed as business income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that the appellant has accounted for the cash in its books of accounts and therefore the provision of section 69A could not be invoked. 5. The above grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed to be altered, amended, modified, deleted etc in the interest of natural justice." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of retail and wholesale trading in Paints and Hardware. A Survey Action u/s 133A of the IT Act was carried out in the business premises of the appellant on 10.08.2017. The return of income u/s 139 was filed by the appellant on 01.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 62,23,460/- (includi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in the computation of income, normal rate of tax was imposed on above additional income of Rs. 8,75,600/- instead of special rate of tax as per section 115BBE of the IT Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer in 154 rectification proceedings corrected the mistake and revised the computation of tax liability on Rs. 8,75,600/-. Against the rectification order u/s 154 passed by Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Before us, it was the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the excess cash found at the business premises of the assessee was also result of business transactions and the same was duly recorded in the final books of accounts along with excess stock found and admitted during the course of survey u/s 133A of the IT Act. It was submitted by Ld. AR that when excess stock was treated as business income, the excess cash found and admitted during the course of survey at the business premises of the assessee should also be treated as result of business transactions. Apart from above, it was also the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that coordinate bench of this Jurisdict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income so offered during the course of survey u/s 133A has to be taxed as normal business income or unexplained investment / unexplained expenditure u/s 69 / 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 16. We find an identical issue had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Shriram Gundale vs. ACIT vide ITA No.79/PUN/2023, Vidyatai Vijay Gundale vs. ACIT vide ITA No.80/PUN/2023 and Rajiv Shriram Gundale vs. ACIT vide ITA No.81/PUN/2023, common order dated 03.08.2023 for assessment year 2019-20. We find the Tribunal following the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajargan Traders reported in (2017) 86 taxmann.com 295 (Rajasthan) reversed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the excess stock found during the course of survey as normal business income instead of attracting the provisions of section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The relevant observations of the Tribunal read as under: "7. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute regarding offering of additional income on account of excess stock for an amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- during the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame was entered in the books of account as on the last day of financial year ending on 31-03-2019 and offered the said amounts to tax under the business income. Therefore, in our opinion, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Bajargan Traders (supra) which was followed by the Jodhpur Benches of Tribunal is similar and identical to the issue in the present case. Therefore, the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of AO in excluding the alleged additional income offered during the course of survey and attracting the provisions u/s. 69B of the Act, consequently, the charging u/s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. The ld. AR submits that the assessee is not interested to prosecute additional grounds. Hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 10. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed." 17. We find similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Yash Construction Co. vs. ACIT (supra) and in the case of Late Harilal Mavjibhai Patel vs. ACIT (supra). Respectfully following the above decisions and considering the f....