9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made on account of the difference between the cost of purchase of quarry and cost as per valuation report. 2. Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 95,000. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Difference Between Cost of Quarry Purchase and Valuation Report: The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 3,77,747, which was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the discrepancy between the purchase cost of a quarry and its valuation report. The AO had added the difference to the assessee's income, claiming it as an unexplained investment. The CIT(A) observed that the document in question was a project report, not a valuation report, and thus could not be used to determine undisclosed investments. The CIT(A) noted that the project report included future projections and costs for assets to be acquired, which were not directly related to the assets acquired through the sale deed. The CIT(A) also mentioned that any addition for undisclosed investment should be made in the hands of the partners, not the partnership firm, as the firm did not have sufficient income to account for such an investment. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the document was indeed a project report and not a valuation report. The Tribunal found no material evidence suggesting extra consideration was paid for the quarry beyond what was stated in the title deed. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground on this issue. 2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Credit of Rs. 95,000: The AO added Rs. 95,000 to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit, noting that the assessee failed to provide an explanation or evidence for the source of this amount. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the partner, Smt. Ushaben Rai, had admitted to contributing this amount towards her capital in the firm. The CIT(A) held that the burden of proof under section 68 was discharged by the assessee, and any unexplained investment should be added to the partner's income, not the firm's. The Tribunal, however, disagreed with the CIT(A). It emphasized that the initial burden of proving the genuineness of cash credits lies with the assessee, which includes proving the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor, and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found that apart from the partner's admission, no evidence was provided to substantiate the source of the Rs. 95,000. The Tribunal cited relevant case law, including the decision in CIT v. Shiv Shakti Timbers, which supports adding unexplained credits in the firm's books to the firm's income if no satisfactory explanation is provided. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's ground on this issue and reinstated the addition of Rs. 95,000 to the assessee's income. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to the quarry purchase discrepancy but reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to the unexplained cash credit, thereby reinstating the Rs. 95,000 addition to the assessee's income.
|
