The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that no scope for extrapolate and estimate undisclosed income for block assessment proceedings.
During the course of assessment proceedings of assessee Mr. A. Sivashankar, document in the form of sale agreement with Mr. M. A. Salim was found and seized by AO, as per which, the assessee was entered into agreement to sale some of plots at Rs.1,458/- per sq. ft., whereas, the assessee has sold remaining plots to other persons @ Rs.400/- to Rs.800/- per sq. ft. The AO compared the rate between the assessee and Mr. M. A. Salim and opined that the assessee has understated the sale consideration of plots sold to other persons and thus, by considering the rate agreed to sell to Mr. M. A. Salim, has adopted for other Sale Deed executed to different persons and estimated undisclosed income on account of under reporting of sale price for all the three assessment years.
The assessee preferred appeal against the assessment order and the CIT (A) has opined that the AO is erred in extrapolating sale price of plots from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,458/- per sq.ft. and made additions towards differential sale consideration. Against which the revenue filed appeal before ITAT
The counsel for the assessee has submitted that there is no scope for the AO to estimate undisclosed income on the basis of incriminating material found for part of year to remaining part of year on the basis of one sole piece of evidence being sale agreement with one person by ignoring other evidences filed by the assessee. It is quite common in real estate segment; the rates are changing very rapidly within a short span of time.
Mr. V. Durga Rao, Hon’ble Judicial Member and Mr. G. Manjunatha, Hon’ble Accountant Member by relying the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd v. DCIT has observed that there is no scope for the AO to extrapolate and estimate undisclosed income for block assessment proceedings.
The Authority has held that “in our considered view, the reasons given by the AO to estimate income on the basis of one evidence of agreement to sale to entire block period is not in consonance with settled legal principles and thus, on this basis alone, additions made by the AO, cannot be sustained”. The Authority further held that “we are of the considered view that the AO is completely erred in estimating sales Revenue from sale of plots for all the three assessment years. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted the additions made by the AO and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed for all the three assessment years”.
Comments