ABISHEK KUMAR PRASAD,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), SILIGURI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.08.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the ‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018–19.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual. On the information received, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the assessee and on perusal of submission of the assessee along with bank account statement, it was seen that the assessee disclosed turnover of Rs.52,14,340/- in his tax audit report as well as his ITR. The assessee filed his return of income at the returned income of Abhishek Kumar Prasad Rs. 3,50,488/- for the A.Y. 2018-19. However, the total deposits amount in his bank account was found at Rs.1,06,74,737/-. After considering the submission of the assessee, assessment order u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer at assessed income of Rs.62,10,831/- after making addition of Rs.54,60,397/- on account of undisclosed transaction.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the very impugned order thereby submitting that the Assessing Officer ought not to have considered the entire undisclosed sales of Rs.54,60,397/- of the assessee as income instead of considering the profit @7.03% embedded in the said undisclosed sales and the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have modified the assessment order but this has not been done. The ld. AR further submits that during the year, the assessee had a total turnover of Rs.1,06,74,767/- as per bank statement and had handed over the Audit Report to the CA and the CA considered the sales of the assessee only for Rs.52,14,340/- in the audited profit and loss account with corresponding proportionate purchases and other expenditures. The ld. AR further submits that as per the audited profit and loss account which was prepared by the said CA, the net profit rate for the year was 7.03% as against net profit rate of 4.72% in the previous year i.e. 2017-18 from the assessee’s business of bricks, cement, rod and other construction items. The ld. AR also submits that the assessee did not have any other bank account using for undisclosed sales and it was from the same bank account, which had been considered by the CA in preparing the profit Abhishek Kumar Prasad and loss account of the assessee. His submission is that there were further deposits from sale proceeds for a sum of Rs. 54,60,397/-, which had not been considered by the said CA in preparing the profit and loss account of the assessee hence, this was the mistake of the said CA and the assessee did not notice the said mistake committed by the CA and had filed his return on the basis of the said audited profit and loss account. The ld. AR also submits that the profit rate of the assessee as per the said audited profit and loss account was 7.03% as against his net profit rate of 4.72% in previous year. The ld. AR states that the assessee filed a revised computation of total income in response to notice u/s 133(6) by considering a profit of Rs. 7,50,434/- @7.03% of entire sales of Rs.1,06,74,737/- and had paid additional tax of Rs.64,843/-. His submission is that the Assessing Officer had not accepted the return of the assessee and had added back the entire undisclosed sales of Rs.54,60,397/- to the returned income of Rs.7,50,434/- without considering the fact that the assessee had already considered a profit @7.03% on his undisclosed sales of Rs.54,60,397/- in filling his return in response to notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148. The ld. AR submits that the entire undisclosed sales cannot be taxed but only profit element embedded therein is required to be taxed.

Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order.

After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case, due to mistake of the auditor of the assessee, the sale was shown short by 54,60,397/- which was candidly admitted by the assessee and the Assessing Officer added the entire sales income whereby the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In our opinion, nonetheless the sales were Rs.54,60,397/- but it is only profit element embedded in the said sales which is to be Abhishek Kumar Prasad brought to tax on the entire sales. We note that the assessee had disclosed profit rate @7.03% of Rs.54,60,397/- which comes to Rs.3,83,865/- and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.