DCIT , JHANSI V. KKG REAL ESTATE P LTD, JHANSI

ITA 469/AGR/2018

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Jhansi against M/s KKG Real Estate (P) Ltd. for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal arose from an order by the CIT(A)-2, Agra, which had significantly reduced the income assessed by the Assessing Officer following a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had estimated the income based on receipts found during the survey, extrapolating them over the entire financial year, which the CIT(A) rejected. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that only real income should be taxed and that assessments cannot be made on mere presumptions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126466 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE. HAVING HEARD PLEADINGS OF LD.; SUKESH KUMAR JAIN LD.
• Keywords: Business income; Dismissed; Commissioner; Commissioner of Income Tax; Credits in bank account; Deleted; Documents found
• Section: 148; 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 469/Agr/2018 (िनधा \u000fरणवष\u000f / Assessment Year:2014-15) DCIT, Circle 2(3)(1), Jhansi. बनाम/ Vs. M/s KKG Real Estate (P) Ltd., 395, Shiv Pariwar Colony Outside Unnao Gate, Jhansi-284002 \u0002थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AADCK-6238-N (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR थ कीओरसे/Respondent by : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Agra [CIT(A)] on 31-03-2018 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 29-12-2016. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. Having heard pleadings of Ld. CIT- DR, our adjudication would be as under. 2. From case records, it emerges that pursuant to survey u/s 133A on the assessee on 25-03-2015, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued on 11-02-2016. The assessee e-filed return of income on 26- 10-2015. On the basis of total receipts shown by the assessee between three months as found during survey, the receipts of entire financial years were estimated and profit thereon was computed at 10% which 2 resulted into addition of Rs.2 Crores in the hands of the assessee. There were credits in bank account for Rs.2.66 Crores which were separately added to the income of the assessee and the assessment was framed at total income of Rs.4.71 Crores. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), in para 6.3, observed that as per document found, the receipts were only Rs.5.51 Crores and 10% thereof i.e., Rs.55.14 Lacs alone was to be treated as business income of the assessee. The extrapolation as made by Ld. AO was rejected since no material was found in that regard. Consequently, separate addition of bank credit was deleted since the same would amount to double addition. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. It is quite clear that the impugned additions are made on the basis of documents found during survey. However, receipts only for three months have been found whereas receipts for entire year have merely been extrapolated without there being any other material on record to support the same. It is trite law that only the real income has to be brought to tax and the assessment cannot be made on mere presumptions. The consequential addition has also rightly been deleted since the same are part of business receipts only. Adding the same again would amount to doble addition which is impermissible. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 5. The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) 5ा ियक सद6 /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद6 /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 3 Dated: 22.04.2025 आदेश की 8ितिलिप अ:ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु1/CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड7फाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AGRA "