PRAMOD ELECTRICALS,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR

Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 5/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20

Pramod Electricals
G-1/225(c), Indraprastha Area,
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFFP4030L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A.
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing

: 28/04/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 29/04/2025

vkns'k@ORDER

PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
8,81,310/-, offered during survey, claiming the same to be its business income.

As regards the other addition of Rs. 96,19,000/-on account of unaccounted/unexplained debtors , made by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.08.2021, relating to assessment year 2019-20, Learned
CIT(A) has upheld the same and dismissed the appeal.

That is how, the assessee is before this Appellate Tribunal.

It is also admitted that on 26.02.2019 a survey action took place in respect of the assessee, u/s 133A of the Act, and, that is how, case of the assessee was manually selected for compulsory scrutiny as per guidelines issued by CBDT. Then notice u/s 143(3) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.09.2020. It was followed by notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.
5. In reply to the notices, the assessee put forth his submission.
6. Case of the department is that during survey, one diary was found at the premises of the assessee. Said diary revealed that the assessee had 3
Pramod Electricals vs. DCIT given cash loans to the tune of Rs. 96,16,000/- to various debtors. During survey, when Pramod Kumar Gauam, a partner of the assessee’s firm was examined, he admitted that the debtors were not recorded in the regular books of accounts.
The assessee, during survey proceedings offered the said undisclosed income of Rs.
96,16,000/- on account of unaccounted/unexplained debtors.

However the assessee depicted the said income, so offered, under the head “Business Income”. While furnishing ITR, not only the assessee admitted the amount of unexplained debtors, it also paid tax on the said amount at normal rate. Even then, the department proceeded against the assessee, so as to charge tax as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act.
7. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that once the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 96,16,000/-, towards unaccounted/unexplained debtors, as found during survey proceedings , reflected the said amount under head “Business Income” in the ITR and also paid tax at normal rate, the department was not justified at all to claim tax on the said amount under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. In support of this 4
ACIT, Circle-2, ITAT No. 1020/JPR/2024 decided on 21.11.2024 and from amongst the other decisions submitted in two volumes.
8. Learned DR for the department has submitted that she stands by the reasons recorded in the impugned order and the impugned assessment as regards the said sole addition under challenge.
9. As noticed above, the assessee was also found in position of excess cash of Rs. 8,81,310/-. Said amount was also offered by the assessee, shown in the ITR, as “business income”, paid tax thereon at normal rate, but the department proceeded to charge tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.
Learned CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal as regards the second mentioned addition relating to excess cash, but upheld the addition as regards unaccounted/unexplained debtors.
10. It is not a case of the department that the Assessing Officer was having any incriminating material against the assessee so as to establish that the said amount of Rs. 96,16,000/- formed part of “income from other sources”, and not the “income from business activity”. Had it been so, the department would have been justified in seeking explanation of the 5
taxmann. Com 619 (Rajasthan), a decision by our own Hon’ble High Court.

Conclusion
11. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the contention raised by the Ld. AR for the appellant that once the assessee offered a sum of Rs.
96,16,000/-, said to have been discovered in the survey proceedings, and paid tax at normal rate, while depicting the said income in the ITR under head “regular income from business activity”, the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the said income as income from other sources, and not as income from business.

6
Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2025. ¼xxu xks;y½

¼ujsUnz dqekj½

(GAGAN GOYAL)

(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29/04/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Pramod Electricals, Kota.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle, Kota.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 5/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत