2010 (1) TMI 918 - AT - Income Tax

Addition towards drawings - drawings made from his saving bank accounts maintained - assessee made sufficient drawings during the period under dispute which have been duly vouched by the Bank statements Held that - addition made under Insufficient drawings stands deleted - misunderstanding had cropped up due to erroneous way in which the accounts statement of affairs and computation of income were originally prepared by the assessee Unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act Held that - unexplained investment made u/s 69 of the Act is deleted as the receipts and investments have since been properly explained and that there was no unexplained investment as alleged by the AO Interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act Held that - Charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act are mandatory and consequential in nature this ground is not maintainable and thus dismissed as such.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 75,000 towards drawings.
2. Addition of Rs. 2,283,518 as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 75,000 towards Drawings:
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 75,000 due to insufficient drawings for personal or household expenses. The CIT(A) supported the AO's decision, stating that the appellant could not provide evidence of withdrawals for personal use. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed made sufficient drawings during the period under dispute, as evidenced by bank statements from ICICI Bank and Corporation Bank. The Tribunal concluded that the misunderstanding arose from the erroneous preparation of accounts by the assessee. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 75,000 was deleted.

2. Addition of Rs. 2,283,518 as Unexplained Investment under Section 69:
The AO added Rs. 2,283,518 as unexplained investment under Section 69, citing discrepancies in the assessee's balance sheets and capital accounts. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, rejecting additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal, however, noted that the AO had submitted a remand report, thereby satisfying the requirements of Rule 46A.

The Tribunal examined the redrawn Income and Expenditure account, Balance Sheet, and capital adjustment account. It found that the differences in the capital account were due to the assessee's lack of accounting knowledge and omissions, such as not recording the sale proceeds of a property and certain exempt incomes. The Tribunal concluded that there was no unexplained investment, as the discrepancies were adequately explained. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,283,518 was deleted.

3. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The assessee contested the charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C. The Tribunal noted that charging interest under these sections is mandatory and consequential. Therefore, this ground was dismissed as not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. The additions of Rs. 75,000 for insufficient drawings and Rs. 2,283,518 as unexplained investment were deleted. However, the charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C was upheld.