MURTUZA INAYATHUSEIN BOHARI,DHULE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DHULE

आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

Assessee is an individual stated to be Proprietor of Raj Electricals which is engaged in dealing in Electrical goods. In this case, Department had conducted survey u/s 133A of the Act on 21.11.2012 wherein the discrepancy with respect to excess stock and excess cash was found.

Assessee had voluntarily agreed for the additional income of Rs.5 lakhs

in addition to the regular income. Assessee thereafter in the return of

income filed electroncially for A.Y. 2013-14 declared the total income of

Rs.4,86,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter

assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

11.03.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs.11,06,290/-.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before

Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 06.03.2018 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-

1/715/2015-16) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the

order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal. Since

there was no appearance on behalf of assessee, the Tribunal vide order

dated 22.06.2018 in ITA No.1212/PUN/2017 dismissed the appeal of the

assessee. Thereafter, assessee moved an M.A. praying for recalling of

the order. After considering the submissions of assessee, the Tribunal in

M.A.Nos.14 & 15/PUN/2019 vide order dated 01.03.2019 recalled the

order passed in ITA No.1212/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14. Thus, the

assessee is now in appeal in 2nd round. The grounds raised by the

assessee reads as under :

“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in. confirming the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the A.O. without appreciating the said addition was not justified in law.

discrepancy with regard to discrepancy in stock of Rs.11,69,932/- and

excess cash of Rs.70,462/- was found. Assessee had voluntarily agreed

to declare the additional income of Rs.5,00,000/-. AO noted that

however in the return of income filed by the assessee, subsequent to

survey assessee had not included the admitted additional income of Rs.5

lakhs. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the additional

income admitted during the course of survey has not offered to tax in the

return of income. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, AO

noted that the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary

and there was nothing to show that the admission was extracted under

any undue influence or coercion. He therefore held the additional

income admitted by the assessee during the course of survey be brought

to be tax and thus made addition of Rs.5 lac. AO also noted that

assessee has not filed capital account and family details and he was

therefore of the view that household expenses could not be examined

properly and therefore he estimated the drawings of the assessee at

Rs.1,20,000/- and made its addition. Aggrieved by the order of AO,

assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the additions

made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in

appeal.

Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that the addition of Rs.5 lakhs has been

made merely on the basis of admission of additional income by the

assessee during the course of survey. He submitted that the statement

recorded during the course of survey does not carry any evidentiary

value and for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. S. Khadar Khan Son reported in 300

ITR 157. He further submitted that apart from making the addition of

Rs.5 lakhs, AO has also made addition of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of

low household expenses which is also not based on evidence. He

therefore submitted that addition be deleted. He alternatively submitted

that when the addition has already been made of Rs.5 lakhs, further

addition of Rs.1,20,000/- is uncalled for, more so as there is no basis for

its addition and therefore the addition be deleted. Ld. D.R. on the other

hand supported the order of AO and Ld.CIT(A).

record. I find that Ld.CIT(A) after considering the decision cited by the

assessee and various other decisions cited in the order has noted that

there was no retraction of additional income by the assessee nor any

material has been placed by assessee to show that the additional income

was admitted by coercion or undue pressure. He has thus concluded

that non-declaration of admitted income was a well planned devise to

frustrate the efforts of the Department to unearth unaccounted income.

These findings of Ld.CIT(A) has not been controverted by assessee. In

such a situation, I find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A)

as far as addition of Rs.5 lac is concerned. With respect to addition of

Rs.1,20,000/- on account of low house hold expenses, I am of the view

that once the addition of Rs.5 lakhs has been made in the present case, it would take care of the addition of low household expenses of Rs.1,20,000/- and in such a situation, separate addition on account of low household expenses is not called for and therefore, I direct to delete the addition of Rs.1,20,000/-. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 25th day of October, 2019.

Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 25th October, 2019. Yamini

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. CIT(A)-1, Nashik. 4. Pr. CIT-1, Nashik. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक सद�य” / 5 DR, ITAT, “SMC” Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

// True Copy // // व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.