Majid Khan Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
132(4) vs 153C Gap Closed -Two Heads, One Disclosure: ITAT Deletes Rs.8.82 Lakh After Full Telescoping
Assessee, engaged in real estate business, was covered u/s 153C pursuant to search on Shahnawaz Group on 25.10.2017. In the statement recorded u/s 132(4), additional income of Rs.40 crores was collectively disclosed in the hands of Shahnawaz, Mohammad Zubairuddin & Assessee. For AY 2016-17, Assessee’s share of additional income was stated as Rs.87,21,138/-. However, in the return filed on 13.12.2019, Assessee admitted only Rs.20,66,692/-. AO therefore made addition of Rs.66,54,448/- (difference between income admitted u/s 132(4) & income returned). In earlier round, Tribunal remanded the matter directing AO to reconcile the income declared at search with the income returned u/s 153C.
In consequential order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 dated 09.06.2023, AO allowed major relief of Rs.57,72,170/- after verifying returns of Shahnawaz & Mohammad Zubairuddin who had offered Rs.28,86,085/- each towards discrepancies in gross receipts/expenses. AO, however, sustained Rs.8,82,278/- as unexplained on the ground that Assessee claimed it was offered in the names of other family members but filed no supporting evidence.
Before CIT(A), Assessee argued that the additional income was offered under two heads—(i) income from real estate business activity on estimate basis & (ii) income towards discrepancies in gross receipts/expenses—but AO considered only one head. CIT(A), however, upheld AO’s view stating Assessee failed to file evidence regarding the balance Rs.8,82,278/-.
