Uday C Tamhankar vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The assessing officer estimated the professional income of the assessee for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. The reasoning given by the AO is explained in brief. The excess cash found at the time of search was declared by the assessee as his income for the AY 2008-09. Accordingly, the assessee included the same in the professional receipts. Accordingly the professional receipts for AY 2008-09 was shown at Rs.328.70 lakhs. The AO took the total number of working days for that year as 300 and accordingly worked out the average collection per day as Rs.1,09,000/-. Then the AO presumed that the assessee would have earned professional collections in the same pattern in the earlier years also. Accordingly, he estimated the average daily collection at Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.90,000/-, Rs.80,000/-, Rs.70,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively for assessment years 2007-08, 2006-07, 2005-06, 2004-05, 2003-04 and 2002-03. Accordingly the assessing officer worked out the gross receipts. Then the AO worked out the difference between the gross receipts declared by the assessee and that was worked out by him. Thereafter he applied the net profit rate declared by the assessee on the difference and accordingly worked out the additions. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) deleted the addition. On appeal by the department to the Tribunal HELD dismissing the appeal:

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the revenue did not unearth any incriminating material, which could suggest that there was under billing or evasion of professional receipts. The revenue only stumbled with excess cash balance and the same was surrendered as income of the year in which the search took place. The assessee offered the same as his professional income. As observed by CIT(A), the unexplained cash is required to be assessed in the year in which it was found as per the deeming fiction of provisions of sec. 69A of the Act, which does not mean that the assessee would have earned the entire excess cash balance in one year. Hence, in our view also, the assessing officer misguided himself by presuming that the entire undisclosed cash balance represents his professional fee collected during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. Hence, in our view, the CIT(A) has rightly concluded that the assessing officer did not bring any material on record to support his case of estimation of professional receipts of earlier years. We also notice that the assessing offer has assessed the net profit on the alleged suppressed professional receipts, meaning thereby, the assessing officer has presumed that the assessee would have suppressed corresponding expenses also. Again it is only a guess work only, unsupported by any material. Similarly, the average daily collection estimated by the AO was also mere guess work. In effect, there is no material available with the AO to show that the assessee has suppressed professional receipts as well as expenses in order to substantiate the estimation made by him. During the course of hearing, the Ld D.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ved Prakash Vs. CIT (265 ITR 642) to support the estimation made by the assessing officer. However, we notice that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has considered a case, wherein materials were found during the course of search. However, in the instant case, no material relating to suppression of professional fee receipts was found.