Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
order. The ld. CIT(A) noticed that the objections raised by the assessee in relation to the wrong calculation of income from the impounded registers were not disproved by the AO. The ld. CIT(A), on the basis of summary of recordings in the impounded registers showing month-wise income and expenses, computed total income of the assessee at Rs.40,17,517/- as against Rs.54,00,889/- worked out by the AO. This resulted into a relief to the extent of Rs.13,83,372/-. The Revenue is contesting such relief allowed by the ld. first appellate authority and the assessee is assailing the confirmation of addition made in the first appeal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. It is an undisputed position that certain registers incorporating month-wise professional receipts and expenses in cash and cheques along with month-wise profit were impounded during the course of survey. Such registers pertained to various years. In so far as the assessment year under consideration is concerned, total income was computed by the AO from such registers to the tune of Rs.54.00 lac.
In the absence of any worthwhile objection from the AO during the remand proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s working of month-wise profit from such register at Rs.40.17 lac for the year in question. The ld. DR could not point out any discrepancy in such working of net profit submitted by the assessee with any cogent material. When the position is such, we fail to appreciate as to how a different view can be taken from the one canvassed by the ld. CIT(A). It calculation of professional receipts and expenses for the year in question but the AO chose not to adversely comment the same, the natural presumption is that the assessee’s calculation was correct. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition at Rs.40,17,517/-. We are unable to comprehend the rationale behind the assessee’s assailing the addition to the extent sustained in the first appeal, because the same is based only on the working of net professional receipts submitted by the assessee himself. We, therefore, dismiss these two grounds taken by the Revenue and the challenge made by the assessee to the sustenance of this addition in his ground of appeal.
7. Ground no. 3 is against restricting the addition of income from undisclosed sources from Rs.4,99,266/- to Rs.2,82,838/-. The assessee has also challenged the sustenance of addition.
8. Succinctly, the facts of this ground are that the assessee also maintained a savings bank account No.702611 with ABN Amro Bank (Now RBS) during the year under consideration, which was not disclosed for income-tax purpose. The AO extracted deposits in the said savings account from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 totaling to Rs.5,35,560.52.
On being called upon to explain the nature of the above deposit entries in the bank account, the assessee submitted the narration and also accepted a sum of Rs.2,82,838/- as undisclosed income emanating from this savings bank account. Entry-wise narration given by the assessee against the deposits in the bank has been reproduced on pages 15-16 of the assessment order. The AO got convinced with the assessee’s contention to the extent of four entries representing deposits in this bank account to the tune of Rs.36,295/-. He further observed that the assessee was a partner in Costa & Chopra, Advocates in April, 2004 and drew a salary of Rs.7,500/- for each month, which was not separately shown as taxable. In the absence of submitting any proof about the claim of transfer entries from another bank account to this bank account, the AO held that the entire amount of Rs.4,99,266/- (Rs.5,35,560 – Rs.36,295/-) was undisclosed income for the year. This addition was made as against 15.12.2010 offering additional income on this score amounting to Rs.2,82,838/-. That is how, a sum of Rs.4.99 lac was added to the assessee’s total income. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that only a sum of Rs.2,82,838/- was income from the deposits made in the above bank account. As regards the remaining amounts, it was stated that the same were withdrawals and re-deposits from one account to another. The ld. CIT(A) found correct the assessee’s contention about the transfer of money from current account to savings bank account. The Revenue is not happy with the deletion of addition to this extent and the assessee is opposing the sustenance of pro tanto addition.
Having heard both the sides on the point and perused the relevant material on record, it is observed that the assessee categorically stated before the AO that certain deposits in saving bank account no. 702611 maintained with ABN Amro Bank, were transfer entries from one account to another. Even entry-wise details were also furnished which the AO refused to accept for want of any further corroboration. When the AO was obliged to cross check the entries. The ld. CIT(A) has examined this aspect and found the assessee’s contention correct. The ld. DR failed to controvert the position ascertained by the ld. CIT(A) in this regard. We, therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in reducing the addition to Rs.2,82,838/-, being the same amount as was offered by the assessee himself. Again, we do not find any logic behind the assessee’s contention for allowing further relief because the assessee himself admitted undisclosed income from this bank account amounting to Rs.2,82,838/-. We, therefore, countenance the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) on this score.
Last effective ground of the Revenue’s appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.15,490/-. The AO included bank interest of Rs.15,490/- in the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition by observing that the bank interest representing interest income of Rs.15,490/- already stood added by the AO in the assessee’s account.
Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that bank interest of Rs.15,490/- emanating from the savings bank account which was not disclosed by the assessee and other credit entries in this bank account, except the transfer entries, have been separately added, for which we have sustained an addition of Rs.2,82,838/-. Since the bank interest of Rs.15,490/- is part of such addition sustained in the first appeal, any further addition for the bank interest would amount to double taxation of same income. We, therefore, approve the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in deleting this addition. This ground fails.
The only other issue taken by the assessee in his appeal is against re-opening of assessment. The ld. AR was fair enough and, in our considered opinion rightly so, not to press this ground of appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 06.10.2015.