AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 11.12.2015, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-35, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)), under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for Assessment Year 2007-08. The assessment order in this appeal is passed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO] under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act.
The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-
(1)That the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the addition to Rs. 45,466/- and giving a relief or Rs. 53,04,833/- to the applicant out of total addition of Rs. 53,50,300/-which was made to the income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income.
(2)That the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by restricting the addition made only to the amounts mentioned in the seized documents and ignoring that these documents acted as a base for rejecting the books of accounts and doing further estimation of unaccounted income.
(3)
a. The order of the CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.
b. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.
In this departmental appeal, the department is contesting the restriction of addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.53,50,300/- under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that in the subsequent year, for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the ITAT, Delhi Benches in ITA No.729 and 730/Del/2016 vide order dated 14.02.2019 has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on the above said issue.
Per Contra, ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has for the year under consideration of AY 2007-18, considered gross profit rate of 31.36% of the Estimated unaccounted Sales, as per seized documents, as undisclosed income of the assessee. We find that the Assessing Officer has extrapolated the unaccounted sales for AY 2007-08 at Rs.1,70,61,000/- as against the unaccounted sale of Rs.1,44,983/-found as per seized documents and considered the GP rate @31.36% of the unrecorded sales. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the unaccounted sales to Rs.1,44,983/- which was found from the seized documents and applied the GP rate @31.36% working out the undisclosed income at Rs.45,466/- only. This issue has been considered by the ITAT decision (supra), wherein the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to limit the unrecorded sales to what was found in the search and in the documents seized, was upheld. The ITAT held that extrapolation in absence of incriminating material is not permitted. Following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the decision of the ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration is also upheld. The ground is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.728/Del/2016 is dismissed.