2016 (8) TMI 1212 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained receipts of funds - proof of transaction - Held that - CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition as the revenue could not produce sufficient evidence to show that the impugned transactions were made by the assessee. The revenue could not link a single transaction recorded in the loose paper with the business of assessee. The nature of notings wherein amount has been calculated at four different rates indicate that it is a rough noting. The revenue has not been able to furnish any finding as to what is the amount of loan, to whom advanced, source of the loan etc. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings arrived at by the CIT(A). The order passed by the Tribunal is required to be confirmed and the questions raised in the present appeal is required to be answered in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging additions made by Assessing Officer - Unexplained receipts of funds and unaccounted interest.

Analysis:
The case involves an individual assessee whose premises were searched under section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer initially determined undisclosed income at ?65,71,526, despite the assessee declaring NIL income after the search. Subsequently, the CIT (Appeals) deleted all additions made by the Assessing Officer. The revenue, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, leading to the revenue filing a Tax Appeal citing substantial questions of law.

In the appeal, the revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in confirming the CIT (A)'s order, arguing that the entries in the documents found during the search indicated unexplained receipts and unaccounted interest. On the other hand, the assessee's representative argued that the Assessing Officer's actions were based on speculation and that the transactions did not align with the nature of the assessee's business.

After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the case records, the High Court observed that the revenue failed to provide concrete evidence linking the transactions to the assessee. The Court noted discrepancies in the notings on loose papers and the lack of details regarding loans and their sources. Consequently, the Court agreed with the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order, ruling in favor of the assessee and dismissing the revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court confirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the revenue's failure to establish a clear connection between the transactions and the assessee. The Court found in favor of the assessee, highlighting the lack of substantial evidence presented by the revenue to support the additions made by the Assessing Officer.