M/S KAIZEN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The reasoning was based on the categorical and clear admission made by the director of the firm under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, confirming the receipt of Rs. 1.35 crores as 'on-money' income of the firm. The Court noted that this statement was not retracted for a long time. Consequently, the Court found no basis for the assessee's suggestion to apply the net profit ratio to determine the income embedded in the receipt, as the entire admitted amount was to be brought to tax. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the ITAT's order which restored the Assessing Officer's addition of the full Rs. 1.35 crores.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., engaged in real estate development, was subjected to search operations. During the search, the director of the assessee-firm made a statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, admitting receipt of Rs. 1.35 crores as 'on-money' income for assessment year 2013-14 and willingness to offer it for tax. The Assessing Officer added this entire sum to the assessee's income. The CIT (Appeals) granted partial relief by applying a profit ratio of 22% to this receipt. The revenue appealed this partial relief. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the revenue's appeal, restoring the Assessing Officer's addition of the full Rs. 1.35 crores. The assessee then filed this appeal before the High Court.
What were the issues?
The High Court was presented with several questions of law, but the singular issue was the ITAT's decision to confirm the addition of Rs. 1.35 crores to the assessee's income for assessment year 2013-14. 1. Whether the ITAT erred in holding that set-off is not available for undisclosed income, despite it being taxable as normal business income as per judicial pronouncements? 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in relying on statements made during enquiry as conclusive evidence, when such statements are important but not necessarily conclusive? 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding the entire 'on-money' receipts as undisclosed income and applying the Gross Profit (G.P.) rate instead of the Net Profit (N.P.) rate on these receipts? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that undisclosed income, even if found, should be taxed as normal business income, and set-off should be available. They also contended that statements made during enquiry are not conclusive and that only the net profit embedded in the 'on-money' receipts should be brought to tax, not the entire amount, by applying the N.P. rate. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions, but their appeal to the ITAT was against the partial relief granted by the CIT (Appeals), indicating they supported the Assessing Officer's view of taxing the entire 'on-money' amount.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 20/01/2022 This appeal is filed by the assessee to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18.01.2019. Following questions are presented for our consideration:- "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in holding that the set-off in case of undisclosed income is not available to the appellant, despite the fact that income even if undisclosed has to be assessee as normal business income as held by various judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by various High Courts? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in relying on the statements made at the time of enquiry, as the same though important piece of evidence however, cannot be held as conclusive? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was correct in holding the entire receipts on account of on-money to be undisclosed income and was right in applying the G.P. rate instead of N.P. rate on the undisclosed receipt?
(2 of 3) [ITA-71/2019] (iv) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be framed by the Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice." Though multiple questions are framed the issue is singular namely the decision of the Tribunal to confirm the view of the assessing officer and CIT (Appeals) to add a sum of Rs.1.35 crores in the hands of the assessee firm by way of income for the relevant assessment year 2013-14. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee was engaged in the business of real estate development and was subjected to search operations. During said search the statement of the director of the assessee-firm was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In such statement the director confirmed that a sum of Rs.1.35 crores was received by way of on-money which was the income of the firm and which he was prepared to offer to tax. The assessing officer therefore made addition of said sum by way of income of the firm. The assesee carried the matter in appeal. The CIT (Appeals) gave partial relief to the assessee and applied the profit ratio of 22% on such receipt to bring the income to tax. The revenue was aggrieved by this portion of the order of CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal and restored the order of the assessing officer.
In the result the entire sum of Rs.1.35 crores stood added to the income of the assessee whereupon this appeal has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the documents on record, we do not find any reason to interfere. The director of the firm had made a categorical and clear statement of admitting the on-money received of Rs.1.35 crores which was the income of the firm. The statement was not (3 of 3) [ITA-71/2019] retracted for a long time. Under the circumstances there is no question of law applying the net profit ratio to find out the income embedded in such receipt which alone could be brought to tax as was suggested by the counsel for the appellant. No question of law arises.
The appeal is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR/7
More judgments on Section 132(4)
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Anilkumar Jayantilal Khatri, Ahmedabad vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2053/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026