TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dt. 31.12.2018 without appreciating the submissions filed during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and law, vide order u/s 250 of the Act dt. 21.03.2025, in confirming the action of the AO of allowing expenses @40% resulting into application of net profit rate of 60% as against net profit rate of 8.73% declared by the assessee. 2.1 That CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the said estimation is arbitrary, devoid of any cogent reasoning, and made without reference to the past profit trends, or any comparable data or material evidence. That the addition has been made purely on estimation basis without any supporting factual or legal basis and is unjustified and bad in law. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in not reducing the declared sales of Rs. 1,08,86,259 while computing the alleged undisclosed sales, resulting in duplication and inflation of income. The approach is contrary to principles of correct computation of income and leads to an unjustified addition. 4. The CIT(A) erred in not verifying the overlapping entries across multiple annexures and failing to provide the benefit of such overlap. That the directio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are that the appellant is an individual and is the proprietor of M/s B. Beautiful, a concern engaged in the business of operating a beauty salon and a boutique. 3.1 That the appellant declared a profit of Rs. 9,67,650/- in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 filed on 05.11.2016. The books of account were duly audited by a Chartered Accountant under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.2 That a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the appellant on 09.03.2017, during which certain documents, including loose papers and Annexures A-1 to A-49, were impounded from the business premises of M/s B. Beautiful. 3.3 That the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2018, whereby aggregate additions of Rs. 5,86,79,788/- were made on the basis of the impounded annexures, along with a further addition of Rs. 47,400/- on account of the alleged failure to deduct tax at source on software expenses. The summary of the assessment are as under : Sr. No Basis of Addition Amount (Rs.) (i) The Ld. AO, on the basis of the entries recorded in the impounded annexures pertaining to the salon business, boutique bus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in dispute along with reference to judicial decisions relied upon in support of his contention, before the tribunal, which are reproduced : A. Submissions in respect of Ground Nos. 2 & 2.1 (Estimation of Profit @ 60%) a) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,64,365/- made bt AO by estimating profit @60% on alleged undisclosed sales of Rs. 24,40,609/-, without appreciating the detailed submissions and evidence placed on record. b) That the appellant is engaged in the salon and boutique business, which is a low-margin service industry requiring significant expenditure on staff salary, consumables, rent, electricity and other operating expenses, and does not justify an abnormal profit rate of 60%. c) That during the year the appellant disclosed turnover of Rs. 1,08,86,260/- and declared net profit of Rs. 9,50,646/-, giving a net profit ratio of 8.73%, consistent with the nature of the business and past history. The comparative chart of turnover and net profit is set out below: A.Y. Turnover (Rs.) Net Profit (Rs.) N.P. rate as per audit report. The relevant document is enclosed at page ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Furthermore, the Ld. AO has made the addition solely on the basis of the receipts recorded in the annexures, while completely ignoring the corresponding payments and expenses incurred in relation to the undisclosed sales. The sample page of the annexure is enclosed, which clearly demonstrates that the expenses recorded therein have been ignored while making the impugned addition. h) From the below table, it is evident that the average rate of profit from the said business to be 3.30% by considering the annexures A-5 to A-11. Therefore, the addition, if any, ought to be restricted by applying the said profit rate on the undisclosed turnover. The addition made by allowing the 40% expenses and made addition @60% on alleged undisclosed sales of Rs. 24,40,609/- amounting to Rs. 14,64,365 is bad in law & arbitrary. Sample Copies of Pages of Annexure submitted to demonstrate that both the income and the corresponding expenditure have been duly recorded therein, whereas the AO has considered only the income component while framing the assessment. Annexure Dated Sale Relevant paper is enclosed at page no. expenses Relevant paper is enclosed at page no. A-5 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 3,97,35,772/- on Annexure A-22) a) That before dealing with the grounds it is necessary to appreciate the nature of Annexure A-22. The period covered in Annexure A-22 begins on 28.04.2015 and ends on 01.09.2016, thereby spanning two financial years, F.Y. 2015-16 and F.Y. 2016-17, corresponding to A.Y. 2016-17 and A.Y. 2017-18 respectively. It is a matter of record that no addition has been made in the case of the appellant for A.Y. 2017-18 on the basis of this Annexure, the entire addition having been confined to A.Y. 2016-17. b) That during the assessment proceedings the appellant consistently submitted that Annexure A-22 belongs to her husband, Sh. Harinder Pal Singh Gill, as is evident from her explanation reproduced at page 31 (serial no. 6) of the assessment order. c) That the AO, at Para 3 of the assessment order, confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,97,35,772/- by considering all the receipts appearing in Annexure A-22, reasoning that the appellant had merely stated that the noting would be explained by her husband and had not made efforts to explain the entries, and concluding that the entries represent unaccounted amounts received by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt's husband. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) suffers from non-application of mind to this material evidence. The Assessing Officer cannot take a different stand on the same issue with the same set of facts across different years. The case laws relied upon are as follows:- * CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC): The Supreme Court held that if a fundamental aspect permeates through different assessment years and has been accepted in one year, it is not appropriate to take a different view in a subsequent year unless there is a material change in facts or law. * Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC): The Supreme Court emphasized that consistency should be maintained in tax matters. It stated that while res judicata does not apply to tax proceedings, the principle of consistency should be followed unless there is a significant change in circumstances. * CIT vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 (Karnataka HC): The Karnataka High Court ruled that a departure from a finding in earlier years without any material change in facts or law would lead to contradictory findings, which is not permissible. * ITO vs. Am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered by the Ld. Assessing Officer nor appreciated by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned addition, made without taking into account the peak balance already disclosed and substantiated by the assessee, is arbitrary, unsustainable, and liable to be deleted. d) That in view of the above, the addition of Rs. 3,97,35,772/- based on Annexure A-22, and the consequential invocation of Section 115BBE, is unsustainable and deserves to be deleted in toto; and, in any event and without prejudice, the addition ought to be restricted to the peak balance of Rs. 31,215/-. e) That it is settled that a seized document is to be read as a whole. Reliance is placed on the following that reading a document as a whole The case laws relied upon as under:- * The HIGH COURT OF DELHI in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indeo Airways (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 244 (Delhi) has held that presumption under section 132(4A) - Where receipts recorded in searched documents are believed to be income, entries of expenditure recorded therein are also to be believed without asking for more evidence for such expenditure'. * The HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of expenditure can be made. On this ground alone the disallowance is untenable. g) That the expenditure incurred towards purchase of software is not liable for deduction of tax at source, as the same represents the purchase of a copyrighted article/off-the-shelf software and not payment for technical services or royalty. Accordingly, the provisions relating to deduction of tax at source are not attracted, and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be made merely on the ground of non-deduction of tax at source. That reliance is placed on the following precedents on the requirement of human intervention for a payment to be "fees for technical services": * CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC) - transaction charges paid to a stock exchange are not fees for technical services u/s 194J in the absence of human intervention. * Skycell Communications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 53 (Mad.) - payments for services not involving human intervention cannot be classified as fees for technical services u/s 194J. * CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 239 (SC) - technical services u/s 194J require h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we estimate the flat rate of profits on the undisclosed portion at (Twelve percentage) ie 12% of Rs. 14,64,365/- (after all expenditures) and the assessee gets consequential relief. 8. Addition of Rs. 3,97,35,772/- based on Annexure A-22, We find that the same has been sustained on basis of entries in impounded Annexure A-22, on the basis of presumptions, even though the assessee explained from the very beginning that the said Annexure belongs to her husband "Sh. Harinder Pal Singh Gill ", who is the sole proprietor of " Harry Auto Fuel "and "Gill Rice Mills" and the revenue also accepted that Annexure A-22 belongs to Sh. Harinder Pal Singh Gill. (Reference on this count is made to Para 4 at page 8 of the assessment order of Sh. Harinder Pal Singh Gill, wherein the AO records that Annexure A-22 impounded from the premises of M/s B. Beautiful pertains to Sh. Harinder Pal Singh Gill, and the noting in Annexure A-22 for A.Y. 2017-18 have been replicated in his hands with no corresponding income attributed to the assessee (wife) .Therefore, making separate additions in different assessment years on the basis of the same annexure and identical entries amounts to, inconsistency and no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Haryana High Court upheld the principle of consistency, highlighting that deviations from earlier decisions without valid reasons can lead to contradictory findings. 12. Regarding the ground of the assessee that impounded documents has to be read as a whole eg. Annexure A-22 and not in a piecemeal manner, the assessee has pointed out that the AO has considered only the receipt side and ignored the payment side, which also pertains to HAF and GRM, which is arbitrary because at best, only the income element embedded in the transactions and not the gross receipts could be brought to tax and he pointed out the fact that peak credit in the instant case was only Rs. 31,215/-. 13. We are of the opinion that as per Rule of Evidence, impounded documents must be accepted and evaluated as a "whole", because as per presumption u/s 292C of the Act, if the receipt side is presumed to be true and correct, the same truth equally applies to both entries, incoming as well as outgoing and there cannot be any selective reliance on any one part at the discretion of the revenue. 14. As such we are of the opinion that the addition of Rs. 3.97 crores made by the AO and sustained by the Ld CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting addition of Rs. 3,55,79,500/- made in the case of assessee on protective basis, when decision in the case of assessee where addition has been made on substantive basis is still pending with CIT(A)? 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 1. This is a departmental appeal and in course of hearing the Ld DR has not filed any written submission. She has relied on the order of the AO. 2. Per contra the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the Department has challenged the deletion of Rs. 3,55,79,500/- by the Ld. CIT(A) which was made on protective basis. However, the Ld. CIT(A) merely deleted the protective addition, while no finding sustaining any substantive addition in the hands of the assessee was recorded. 3 He further stated that most of the entries appearing in the impugned annexure pertain to Harinder pal Singh & Gill Medicare Private Ltd. and do not belong to the assessee as apparent from (page no. 18 on para 8.5 of the assessment order). Therefore, no addition on the basis of such en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee made any unexplained or excess investment in stock. 3.1 That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of alleged excess stock, without appreciating that Section 69B applies only to unexplained investments in money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the assessee was in possession of any such unexplained assets, and hence, the invocation of Section 69B is misconceived, unjustified, and bad in law. 3.2 That the CIT(A) overlooked the fact that stock-in-trade or stock of small denominations, do not fall within the ambit of Section 69B of Income Tax Act 1961. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of a plot, without properly appreciating that no such property was ever purchased by the assessee. 4.1 That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onding debit entries and Without identifying any defect in the peak working submitted by the appellant based on Annexure A-48 and entries in capital account. 9. Without prejudice to above ground that the CIT(A) has erred in not providing telescoping benefit of additions confirmed on account of net profit against other additions. That CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the cash movement as recorded in aforesaid annexures was sourced from unrecorded sales. 10. That the CIT(A) has erred in conforming the addition of Rs. 4,30,000 made by AO under section 68 read with section 115BBE despite rejection of books of account rendering invocation of section 68 legally unsustainable. 11. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of." 1. The facts of the case for this year under appeal is that the assessee has declared a loss of Rs. 25,69,913/- in the income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18, which was filed on 30.03.2018. The books of the appellant were duly audited by a Chartered Accountant in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the chronology of ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal to CIT(A) (Gr. 4). 8 & 9 3. Alleged excess stock on the basis of stock statement furnished to the bank 69B 21,71,372 Para 6 (i) of page 7 of assessment order Confirmed. In appellant's appeal to CIT(A) (Gr. 5). Page no. 58 para 5.5.3 of the CIT Order 3, 3.1 & 3.2 4. Alleged investment in 'ITI plot' (Page 303, Annexure A-46) 69 10,00,000 Para 6(ii) of page 7 of assessment order Confirmed. In appellant's appeal to CIT(A) (Gr. 6). Page no. 59 of the CIT Order 4 & 4.1 5. Alleged investment in renovation of salon (Page 330, Annexure A-46) 69 30,00,000 Para 6(iii) of page 8 of assessment order Confirmed. In appellant's appeal to CIT(A) (Gr. 7). Page no. 59 of the CIT Order 5 & 5.1 6. Alleged unexplained election expenditure (Page 21, Annexure A-45) 69C 1,48,45,000 Para 7 of page 8 of assessment order Confirmed. In appellant's appeal to CIT(A) (Gr. 8). Page no. 59 to 61 of the CIT Order 6 7. Alleged unexplained credit - Sh. Sukhdev Singh 68 4,30,000 Para 9 of page 18 of assessment order Confirmed. In appellant's appeal to CIT(A) (Gr. 10). Page no. 65 to 66 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... physically inventorised the stock during the survey. Accordingly, the addition on account of alleged unexplained investment in stock is factually and legally unsustainable. 4. Alleged investment in 'ITI plot' (Page 303, Annexure A-46) Rs. 10,00,000 NA That the AO relied solely upon an unidentified rough noting, despite the fact that no plot was ever purchased by the assessee. The document neither identifies the plot nor mentions any plot number, khasra/khata number, area, location or other particulars. Being an uncorroborated dumb document, it cannot form the basis of any addition. 5. Alleged investment in renovation of salon (Page 330, Annexure A-46) Rs. 30,00,000 NA That the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer is undated and does not bear the signature of the assessee. Even otherwise, the expenditure pertained to F.Y. 2013-14 and stood duly recorded in the regular books of account. Accordingly, the addition made in the year under consideration is factually erroneous and unsustainable. 6. Alleged unexplained election expenditure (Page 21, Annexure A-45) Rs. 1,48,45,000 NA That the AO relied upon a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee in the preceding assessment year i.e AY 2016-17 were duly accepted by the Department and there was no change in the nature or manner of carrying on the business, which continued to comprise salon and boutique activities. That in AY 2016-17 the AO has only applied enhanced N.P. on 60% on 24,40,609/- and did not disturb book results. c. That the assessee had also furnished its comparative trading results for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. A separate chart summarizing the turnover, net profit and corresponding net profit rate for the said years is reproduced hereunder. The comparative results clearly demonstrate that the Assessing Officer has arbitrarily and unreasonably applied an exorbitant net profit rate of 60%, without considering the assessee's consistently accepted past history. The past results of the assessee, particularly where the nature of business and surrounding circumstances remained unchanged, constituted the most relevant and reliable basis for estimating the income. The application of a net profit rate of 60%, being wholly divorced from the assessee's historical results and unsupported by any comparable case or cogent material, is therefore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....more than once. The detailed submissions in support of this contention are set out hereinafter while dealing with Ground No. 8 &9 and may kindly be read as an integral part of the present ground as well. j) It is accordingly submitted that the estimation of gross profit @ 60% is arbitrary, excessive and unjustified and deserves to be deleted / suitably reduced in line with the past accepted profit margins of the appellant. Submissions in respect of Ground Nos. 3, 3.1 & 3.2 (Addition of Rs. 21,71,372/- on the basis of a stock statement submitted to the bank) a) That the sole material for this addition is a list of stock at page 18 of Annexure A-46, being the stock statement furnished by the appellant to the State Bank of Patiala on 18.04.2016 for the purpose of obtaining a cash credit limit, showing stock of Rs. 1,08,58,500/-. The Ld. AO compared this against the opening stock as on 01.04.2016 of Rs. 86,87,128/- and added the difference of Rs. 21,71,372/-. b) That the comparison is, on its own terms, arithmetically incorrect. The stock statement speaks as on 18.04.2016. The book figure adopted speaks as on 01.04.2016. The Purchases effected and co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed variation in stock is factually incorrect and contrary to the contemporaneous survey record. That the Ld. CIT(A) has sought to sustain the alleged stock variation merely on the basis of a photocopied document. Such an unauthenticated and uncorroborated photocopy, particularly when unsupported by any physical stock verification, quantitative reconciliation, purchase record or other independent evidence, cannot by itself constitute reliable evidence for concluding that the assessee possessed excess or unexplained stock. The impugned finding is thus founded on mere presumption and conjecture and is liable to be rejected. Provision of Sec. 69B are not applicable g) That, even otherwise and without prejudice, the provisions of section 69B are not attracted to the facts of the present case. There is neither any established excess stock nor any material demonstrating that the assessee had made an investment in stock exceeding the amount recorded in its books of account. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.N. Singh v. CIT, Central, Patna* [2023] 150 taxmann.com 301 (SC), wherein, while interpreting the analogous express....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk on an estimated basis cannot be treated as the value of stock for computation of income; the stock statement is material that may be examined but is not conclusive. iii. ITO v. Devi Dayal Rice Mills, (2002) 75 TTJ (Asr) 24 - addition deleted where the statement was prepared on an estimate basis, the stock was hypothecated, and no physical verification was carried out by the bank. iv. Chitta Ranjan Bera v. ITO, [2023] 150 taxmann.com 277 (Calcutta) - the appellant cannot be taxed on the basis of inflated stock shown in a stock statement submitted to a bank; the burden is on the Assessing Officer to show undisclosed income. v. CIT v. Shib Sankar Das, [2017] 83 taxmann.com 193 (Calcutta); vi. CIT v. Simron Prints (P) Ltd., [2014] 52 taxmann.com 532 (Gujarat); vii. CIT v. Veerdip Rollers (P) Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Gujarat); viii. ACIT v. Jaibaba Castings (P) Ltd., [2024] 167 taxmann.com 447 (Raipur - Trib.); ix. Relaxo Footwear v. ITO, [2001] 73 TTJ 712 (Jodhpur). x. Income-tax Officer vs. Triple V Timber Sales Corpn. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 241 (Chandigarh - Trib.)/[2015] 40 ITR(T) 204 (Chandigarh - Trib.)/[20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocument is nothing but a dumb document having no evidentiary value. Thus, in the absence of any corroborative evidence establishing undisclosed income, the addition made solely on the basis of such a dumb document is unsustainable in law and deserves to be deleted. That reliance is further placed on i. Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen vs. ACIT [2024] 168 taxmann.com 385 (Bangalore - Trib.)[08-07-2024] (the burden is on the Revenue to prove conclusively that a document found at the premises represents an unaccounted payment; where the counter-party is not examined, the addition rests on conjecture) ii. Arvik Properties & Investments (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 652 (Mumbai - Trib.); iii. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sharad Chaudhary [2015] 55 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi - Trib.)[25-07-2014] iv. CIT v. Ravi Kumar, [2008] 168 Taxman 150 (P&H). 7. Submissions in respect of Ground Nos. 5 & 5.1 (Addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- Alleged investment in renovation of salon (Page 330, Annexure A-46) (AO order page no. 8 para 6(iii) and CIT(A) page no. 59): a) That page 330 of Annexure A-46 contains a list of items - wood interior, lighting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Chd - Trib.). That section 69 fastens on an investment 'made' in the financial year in question. There is no material whatsoever to place the alleged investment in F.Y. 2016-17. The addition is therefore bad even on the Department's own hypothesis, and is prayed to be deleted. 8. Submissions in respect of Ground Nos. 6 (Addition of Rs. 1,48,45,000/- Alleged unexplained election expenditure (Page 21, Annexure A-45) : a) That the document relied upon is page 21 of Annexure A-45. It is headed, in terms, as an estimate of expenses on the election for the Bathinda Urban constituency. The appellant did not contest the Punjab Legislative Assembly election of February 2017, nor any other election, in this or in any other year. She was the President of the Mahila Wing of a political party. An estimate of what a campaign might cost is not an expenditure incurred. b) That the section 69C is attracted only where 'an appellant has incurred any expenditure'. The provision does not permit the taxation of a proposal, a budget or a projection. The Department has not identified a single payee, produced a single voucher, or examined a single recipie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sal and not an actual transaction, and the addition was deleted. The relevant case laws is reproduced below for your ready reference. i. Sridhar Pandey S/o Late Shri Babu Ram Pandey. Versus ACIT-2, Agra. reported at 2025 (4) TMI 1476 - ITAT AGRA ii. Central Bureau of Investigation CBI Versus VC. Shukla & ORs. reported at 1998 (3) TMI 675 - Supreme Court iii. Bilaspur v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as reported at [2012] 19 taxmann.com 61 (Chhattisgarh) iv. Sushil Kumar Chauhan Versus DCIT, Central Circle, Agra. 2026 (6) TMI 1273 - ITAT AGRA 9. Submissions in respect of Ground Nos. 10 (Addition of Rs. 4,30,000/- Alleged unexplained credit - Sh. Sukhdev Singh) a) That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,30,000 made by AO under section 68 read with section 115BBE, despite rejection of books of account, rendering invocation of section 68 legally unsustainable b) That Sh. Sukhdev Singh advanced a total of Rs. 8,80,000/- to the appellant through banking channels in three tranches - Rs. 1,90,000/- Rs. 4,30,000/- and Rs. 2,60,000/-. The Ld Assessing Officer accepted the first and the third on the strength of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubali Neminath Muttin reported at [2016] 73 taxmann.com 100 (Karnataka) [13-07-2016] has held that Section 69B, read with section 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Stocks) - Whether where books of account of assessee had been rejected by assessing authority, same books of account could not be relied upon in an addition on account of trade creditors and also for arriving at closing stock - Held, yes [Para 15] [In favour of assessee]. iii. Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala vs. Dulla Ram, Labour Contractor, Kotkapura as reported at [2014] 42 taxmann.com 349 (Punjab & Haryana) [22-10-2013] has held that Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits [Rejection of books of account, effect of] - Whether where books of account are rejected in their entirety, Assessing Officer cannot rely upon any entry in those books of account for making an addition to assessee's taxable income under section 68 - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]. iv. CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. (Jal.) [2006] 156 TAXMAN 40 (PUNJ. & HAR.), the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court has held that if the AO has applied NP rate on contract receipts of the assessee for estimated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ries could not be treated as income. At the highest, only the peak cash balance, after considering both debit and credit entries, could be examined. The peak amount works out to Rs. 39,13,194/-. d. That the Ld. AO had already rejected the books of account under section 145(3) (Refer page no 3 of the assessment order) and estimated the assessee's business income by applying a net profit rate. Therefore, the same entries forming part of the rejected books could not again be separately added under section 68 without independent evidence establishing a distinct and unexplained source. e. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in *CIT v. Aggarwal Engineering Co. (Jal.) [2008] 302 ITR 246, wherein a separate addition was held to be unjustified, on the facts of that case, after rejection of the books and estimation of profit. f. That the Ld. CIT(A) could not reject the aforesaid legal contention merely by observing that the assessment arose from survey proceedings. The nature of the proceedings does not dispense with the statutory requirements of section 68 or permit duplication of the same income. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axmann.com 44 (Calcutta) h. That reliance is being placed upon following case laws what is required to be tax is a peak amount a. D.K. Garg Vs. CIT reported at (2018) 253 taxman 0001 (SC) b. The High Court of Gujarat in the case Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aliasgar Anvarali Vartej [2018] 96 taxmann.com 231 (Gujarat) c. The High Court of Karnataka in the case Shri H. Nagaraja v. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), BENGALURU 2021 (2) TMI 755 d. Virasha Infrastructure [TS-315-ITAT-2021(Ind)]- 2021 (4) TMI 684 - ITAT INDORE e. The ITAT PUNE BENCH in the case of Kantilal & Bros. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [1995] 52 ITD 412 (PUNE) 11. Submissions in respect of Ground Nos. 7 & 7.1 (Duplication of Rs. 1,86,70,000/-: This ground of appeal No - 7 is treated as withdrawn because the grievance of the assessee is settled by the AO post first appeal direction. Relying on all the above submissions the Ld AR prayed for adequate relief on the grounds contained in the memo of appeal. 12. The Ld DR has not filed any submissions and has relied on the order of the Ld CIT (A) . 13. Our observation and decision : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntains breakup of head-wise expenditure (as reflected in earlier paragraph) totalling Rs. 29.50 lakhs (all heads appearing in rounded off figures). In absence of any other material brought on record by the AO except the sheet of paper containing the renovation breakup (undated), the explanation of the assessee seems to be a possible explanation under the circumstances, more so when the figures of Rs. 29.50 and Rs. 28.97 are almost matching . As such we remand this issue back to the AO for verification of FY 2013-14 assessment records and audit report and if the investments are found recorded and disclosed, the addition on this count will stand deleted. This ground of appeal is set aside to the AO with direction for limited purpose as indicated above. Ground No 6 : Addition of Rs. 1,48,45,000/- u/s 69 C on account of alleged unexplained "election expenditure" which is flowing from impounded document A-45 page 21 . It is explained by the Ld AR that the assessee was the President of the Mahila Wing of a political party and was contemplating to contest the Bhatinda Urban constituency elections and has made an estimate of the proposed expenditure that might be incurred regardin....