M/S GANADHISH GNP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -6(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3980/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 March 2025AY 2021-2225 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by accepting the 'on-money' receipts but disregarding the expenses found in the same seized documents. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that seized papers must be interpreted as a whole.

What were the facts?

During a search, the assessee firm was found to have received 'on-money' cash receipts from the sale of commercial units. The assessee offered these receipts as undisclosed income, claiming 80% as expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed all expenses, treating the entire amount as income.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer can accept 'on-money' receipts from seized documents while ignoring the expenses mentioned in the same documents. The presumption under Section 132(4) regarding the truthfulness of entries in seized documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HONBLE & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Aadnya Bhandari, Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR
For Respondent: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Aadnya Bhandari, Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR
Hearing: 18.12.2024Pronounced: 17.03.2025

Heard together (5 matters)

ITA No. 3966/Mum/2024
ITA No. 3965/Mum/2024
ITA No. 3980/Mum/2024
ITA No. 4485/Mum/2024
ITA No. 4481/Mum/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

method of recognizing the revenue in the books of account. Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has carried out any exercise to determine the net profit and total turnover on the basis of material on record for arriving at a reasonable profit embedded in the unaccounted transaction of on-money found in the case of the assessee. Since the assessee has not offered any income for the A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20 and they have offered only income on the proportionate completion of the project from the A.Y. 2020-21 to 2022-23 as referred above in this order and average net profit percentage offered is 18.33% (13% + 29% + 13%).

9.

The assessee has offered average net income from construction business in the audited books of accounts for the period A.Y. 2018-19 to 2022-23 at 18.33%. The action of the AO to treat the whole on money receipt of Rs. 13,65,13,712/- as part of net profit would result in abnormal net profit as about 70% on the sale amount of Rs. 32,97,59,363/- after adding the on money result of Rs. 13,65,13,712/- to the net profit of Rs. 9,33,89,589/- already declared as per the books of account. We further noticed infirmities in the consolidated income computed by the ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee was following the project completion method but for the A.Y. 2020-21 no sale/revenue was mentioned against the net incme / net profit of Rs. 1,31,95,081/- which was shown for the A.Y. 2020-21 for the purpose of arriving consolidated income of all the years at the average net profit of 26% because the ld. CIT(A) at page no 20 of the order has considered the net profit for the A.Y. 2020-21 @ 13%. Therefore, we consider that the profit embedded in the on-money transaction is reasonable to estimate @ 22%. Therefore, we estimate the net profit @ 22% of accounted receipt of Rs. 3,79,07,014/- instead of 26% estimated by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(A.Y. 2020-21) (Assessee Appeal)

10.

Since on similar issue and identical fact vide we have partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by estimating the net profit @ 22% on unaccounted business receipt. Therefore, applying the findings of the same mutatis mutandis the net income of the assessee from unaccounted business is also estimated @ 22%. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. (A.Y. 2021-22) (Assessee Appeal) 11. Since on similar issue and identical fact vide we have partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by estimating the net profit @ 22% on unaccounted business receipt. Therefore, applying the findings of the same mutatis mutandis the net income of the assessee from unaccounted business is also estimated @ 22%. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. (A.Y. 2021-22) (Revenue Appeal) 12. Since this appeal of the Revenue is based on identical issue on similar fact to the for A.Y. 2019-20 as adjudicated (supra) in this order by which the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed applying the findings of the same mutatis mutandis this appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed.

13.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

More judgments on Section 132(4)

All 3,819 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →