Case Law Details
Rameshlal Kailash Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
The case of Rameshlal Kailash vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai) revolves around the assessment year 2017-18 and centers on the taxation of income derived from a family-run money lending business. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai upheld the addition of excess income as ‘business income,’ despite initial categorization challenges by the Assessing Officer (AO).
Assessment Proceedings: During the assessment, it was discovered that the assessee, engaged in money lending for over two decades, had made significant cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer scrutinized these deposits and deemed them to be ‘income from other sources’ instead of ‘business income,’ as claimed by the assessee. The discrepancy arose from unaccounted advances to debtors, which the assessee argued stemmed from their regular money lending activities. Despite presenting evidence such as debtor lists and tax audit reports, the AO maintained that the income was undisclosed and taxable under Section 69.
Appellate Proceedings: In the appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], the assessee reiterated that the excess income should be treated as ‘business income’ since it was integral to their money lending operations. They provided further evidence including promissory notes and debtor confirmations. However, the CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision, citing unexplained sources of the excess advances and lack of proper accounting.
ITAT Chennai’s Findings: The ITAT Chennai reviewed the case and emphasized the nature of the income derived from the money lending business. It acknowledged the continuous flux in debtor balances and upheld that such discrepancies were inherent to the business. Referring to precedents and case laws, including decisions from the Madras High Court and other tribunals, the ITAT concluded that the income in question should indeed be classified as ‘business income.’ It noted the consistent operation of the money lending business over two decades and the absence of any other substantial source of income for the assessee. As assessee has correctly offered the additional income as ‘Business Income’ only. The provisions of Sec.69 r.w.s. 115BBE would have no application.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
