2015 (3) TMI 1116 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained expenditure made u/s 69C - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - AO was not justified in making the addition on the basis of statements given by the third parties before the Sales Tax Department without conducting any other investigation It has to be appreciated that (i)Payments were through banking channel and by Cheque, (ii) Notices coming back does not mean those Parties are bogus they are just denying their business to avoid sales tax/VAT etc (iii) Statement by third parties cannot be concluded adversely in isolation and wi thout corroborating evidences against appel lant (iv) No cross examination has been offered by AO to the appel lant to cross examine the relevant parties (who are deemed to be wi tness or approver being used by AO against the appel lant) whose name appear in the websi te www.mahavat.gov. in and (v) Fai lure to produce parties cannot be treated adversely against appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 28.08 lakhs related to unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in civil construction, claimed purchase expenditure of Rs. 8,62,68,891 during the relevant year. The AO noted purchases of Rs. 28.08 lakhs from parties listed by the Sales Tax Department for providing accommodation entries. Despite efforts to verify these purchases, including sending notices and requesting documents, the parties could not be located. Relying on statements from these parties, the AO treated the purchases as unexplained expenditure under section 69C.

2. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue, represented by the ld. DR, supported the AO's order. Conversely, the ld. AR argued that similar additions in other cases were overturned by the Tribunal, citing specific cases where additions based solely on third-party statements were rejected. The ld. CIT(A) analyzed the facts, referencing judicial precedents, including the Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 Mumbai Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt, Ltd. and Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer. Noting the banking transactions, lack of cross-examination, and failure to produce parties, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the addition could not be sustained.

3. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no fault in the analysis. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the Rs. 28.08 lakhs addition as unexplained expenditure. The judgment was pronounced on 5th March 2015 by the Tribunal.