Rajneesh Agarwal (HUF), Hyderabad V. ACIT, Hyderabad

ITSSA 25/HYD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8735 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E SUNIL BABU
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.25/HYD/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD OF ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 1997-98 TO 2002-0 3 AND FROM 1.4.2002 TO 18.4.2002) SHRI RAJNEESH AGARWAL (HUF) HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAAHR 8645 G ) V/S. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 10(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E. SUNIL BABU O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD COMPRISI NG OF ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 1997-98 TO 2002-03 AND FROM 1.4.20 02 TO 18.4.2003 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX(APPEALS). 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER- '1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APP EALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DETERMINING THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.17,2 1,282/-. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE AGENT SENT THE SALE NOTES TO THE APPE LLANT HEREIN AND THE PRICE AS PER THE SALE NOTES WAS ALREADY RECORDE D IN THE BOOKS OF IT(SS)A NO.25/HYD/08 SHRI RAJNEESH AGARWAL (HUF) HYDERABAD 2 ACCOUNT OF HUF AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TREATED ANY PART OF THE AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED AND HEL D THAT THERE IS NO UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN.' 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE E NTIRE AMOUNTS OF SALE NOTES WERE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE, ALTHOUGH AT THE MOST SOME INCOME ON ESTIMATE BASIS ON THE SUPPRESSED SALE CO ULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT THERE WAS NO SUPPRESSION IN THE QUANTITY OF THE GOODS SOLD AND THE SUPPRESSION WAS IN RESPECT OF THE RATES OF GOODS SOLD, THEREBY REDUCING THE VALUE OF EACH INVOICE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTITY OF THE GOODS TRANSACTED BY T HE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SALE NOTES SENT BY THE AGENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN SOME UNACCOUN TED SALES ARE EFFECTED, THERE MUST HE SOME UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES ALSO. I N THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHERE SOME SUPPRESSED SALES ARE FOUND, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED CORRECT STATE OF AFFAI RS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TH AT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE EXCESS AMOUNT OVER THE INVOICE VALUE DECLARE D BY IT. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE REBUTTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, IN A CASE WHERE THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT REFLECT THE CORRECT STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE, SOME REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF INCOME COULD BE MADE. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE SHAL L BE MET, IF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESTIMATED AT 12.5% (WITH NO FURTHER CLAIM OF E XPENSES) ON THE TOTAL IT(SS)A NO.25/HYD/08 SHRI RAJNEESH AGARWAL (HUF) HYDERABAD 3 AMOUNT OF RS.17,21,282 REPRESENTING SUPPRESSED SALES, AS P ER THE SALE NOTES SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE ADDITION TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGL Y. GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3.12.2010 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (G.C.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 3RD DECEMBER, 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI RAJNEESH AGARWAL (HUF) C/O. SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, 102 SHRIYA'S ELEGANCE, DOOR NO.3-6-643, STRE ET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), HYDE RABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) VI HYDERABAD. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VI HYDERABAD . 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S.