2014 (9) TMI 1025 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 69 - Held that - Admittedly, assessees have made investments in fixed assets and the source of such investments was the inflow available on the Liability Side of the Balance Sheet. Since the Assessing Officer has not properly appreciated the facts, before the learned CIT(A), the source was explained, and the same was accepted by the learned CIT(A). Having accepted the source of funds, there cannot be any addition made in this year and even in the subsequent year, i.e. in the year of sale, the source of investment cannot be disputed. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in giving direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the source of investment in the year of sale. In these circumstances, we set aside the directions of the learned CIT(A) and hold that it is not a fit case for making the addition under S.69. See M/s. Manas Greenland Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Versus Income Tax Officer (OSD) 2014 (12) TMI 399 - ITAT HYDERABAD - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of development expenses to fixed assets treated as unexplained investment.
2. Disallowance of development expenses and direction to provide supporting evidence.
3. Allowability of development expenses as cost of acquisition in subsequent years.

Issue 1:
The appeal was against the addition of Rs. 2,16,044 made by the Assessing Officer to the fixed assets of the company, claiming it as development expenses. The Assessing Officer treated this addition as unexplained investment since the relevant details or documentary evidence were not provided by the company. The CIT(A) found merit in the company's submissions, stating that the addition was not unexplained as it was extracted from the application of funds on the balance sheet. The CIT(A) directed the company to provide complete details of the expenses and supporting evidence for consideration in the relevant year.

Issue 2:
The company contended that the recorded expenditure did not constitute unexplained investment and should not be disallowed. They argued that the increase in the addition to assets from audited financial statements confirmed the recording of assets and was not an unexplained investment. The CIT(A) agreed with the company's stance, emphasizing that the source of funds for the investment in fixed assets was explained and not unexplained. However, the CIT(A) directed the company to file complete details of expenses for future consideration when the land is sold.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering a similar case involving identical facts, set aside the CIT(A)'s direction to consider the sources of investments in the year of sale. Citing the decision in the other case, the Tribunal held that since the source of funds was explained and accepted, there was no justification for making additions under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the company, overturning the CIT(A)'s direction and decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the source of funds for the investment in fixed assets was explained and accepted, thus rejecting the addition made by the Assessing Officer and the direction given by the CIT(A) for future consideration of the expenses when the land is sold.