SURESH BHAVARLAL SONI,DHULE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DHULE CIRCLE, DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 223/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the excess income was accepted and credited to the profit and loss account, it could not be treated as unexplained income and assessed under Section 115BBE. The income should be treated as income from business.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a jeweler, declared income for AY 2017-18. During a survey, the assessee accepted additional income which was offered to tax and credited to the profit and loss account. The AO applied a higher tax rate under Section 115BBE to this income.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking Section 115BBE on income accepted and offered to tax during survey operations and credited to the profit and loss account.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Paswal
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 18.04.2024Pronounced: 18.04.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A), Pune-11 dated 25.01.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual carrying on the business of purchase and sale of Gold under the name and style ‘Deepak Jewellers’. Return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 25.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.47,39,800/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 06.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income. While doing so, the AO applied higher rate of tax under the provisions of section 115BBE in respect of income offered to tax amounting to Rs.21,04,734/- during the course of survey operations conducted on 30.08.2016. The income so offered to tax by the appellant was also credited to the profit and loss account.

3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO placing reliance on the following judgments :

1.

Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT 120 taxman 11 (Gujarat) 2. Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013 216 taxmann 153 (P&H)

3.

M/s. SVS Oil Mills Vs.ACIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 388 (Madras)

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

Heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The solitary issue that arises for my consideration is whether the AO was justified in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE where the appellant had accepted the excess income during the course of survey operations and offered the same to tax and credited to the profit and loss account. I find the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Rajasthan Store Industries Vs. ITO dt.

22.08.2023 had an occasion to adjudicate an identical issue in favour of the appellant, copy placed at page 394 to 398 of the paper book. The operative portion of the decision is reproduced below :

“5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whereas in the present case the excess income was credited to the P & L A/c and, therefore, it cannot be said that excess income is derived from income from other sources. For this proposition, I derive strength from the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bajargan Traders [2017] 86 taxmann.com 295 (Raj.) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the excess income declared during the course of survey proceedings cannot be treated as unexplained income of the assessee-appellant since credited to P & L A/c and cannot be assessed as income from other sources, but, under income from business. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee.”

6.

Following the same parity of reasoning, the grounds raised by the appellant are allowed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. Order pronounced on this 18th day of April, 2024.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →