2010 (9) TMI 810 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in purchase of properties - assessee had failed to discharge its onus and further the findings of the Assessing Officer on the basis of seized documents and subsequent investigations had established that Shri Morabia and Shri Vinod Mehta were only name lenders - cheque was reflected in the books of account produced during the course of hearing. The Tribunal has also observed that the learned DR could not bring any material contrary to the findings of the CIT(A). The Tribunal has therefore confirmed the order of CIT (A) on this issue no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal correctly confirmed the deletion of additions on account of unexplained investment in properties and non-genuine payments.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a Block assessment period. The substantial questions of law for determination included the confirmation of deletion of additions by the Appellate Tribunal. The first issue pertained to the addition of Rs.34,12,627 on account of unexplained investment in properties. The Assessing Officer had established that certain individuals were only name lenders, but the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the deletion of this addition. The second issue was regarding the addition of Rs.2,55,000 made on account of non-genuine payment to a company. The Appellate Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of this addition despite lack of evidence from the assessee to establish the genuineness of the expenditure.

2. The Revenue contended that the findings of the Assessing Officer were neglected by the CIT (A) and the Appellate Tribunal. It was argued that subsequent investigations revealed the benami nature of investments and non-genuine payments. The Revenue emphasized that tax liabilities were not fully discharged by the involved parties. The Appellate Tribunal, however, upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, stating that the CIT (A) had rightly deleted the additions based on the evidence presented.

3. Upon review, the High Court found that the CIT (A) had extensively discussed the issues and the Tribunal had correctly confirmed the deletions of the additions. Regarding the unexplained investment in properties, it was noted that one individual confirmed the payment and had settled with the Commission, absolving the assessee of liability. Similarly, in the case of non-genuine payments, the CIT (A) had based the deletion on the evidence presented during the hearing, which was not contradicted by the Revenue. As both the Appellate Authorities had concurrent findings, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, leading to the summary dismissal of the Appeal.