2011 (12) TMI 383 - AT - Income Tax

Block assessment - Undisclosed Investment - streedhan - source of investment - held that - CIT(A) ordered that the credit of at least 60 tolas should have been given by the AO being 40 tolas streedhan and 20 tolas on account of minimum purchases of 2 to 3 tolas on different occasions during the block period. In view of this, the credit of 60 tolas is very reasonable and accordingly the explained investment is worked out at Rs.96,420/- (976.300 - 699.840 gms). However, in view of the fact that during 1.11.1999 to 30.1.2001, the appellant had disclosed interest income of Rs.5,96,116/-, the plea of the appellant that the same may be considered as acquired out of interest income has to be accepted. - the assessee had admitted undisclosed interest income of Rs.5,96,116/- as per return u/s 158BC of the Act which, as suggested by the Ld. CIT (A), requires to be accepted that the assessee must have acquired out of the said amount admitted u/s 158BC of the Act. - Decided against the revenue. Regarding undisclosed investment in FDs - held that - As rightly pointed out by the first appellate authority, the assessee had the substantial agricultural income year after year and also disclosed additional income on account of interest income, the investment of Rs.57,908 - Rs.4,000 stands explained. This ground is decided against the Revenue. Regarding undisclosed investment in money lending business - (i) agricultural income; (ii) amounts withdrawal from NRE A/c of the assessee s son; (iii) Gifts received from NRIs; (iv) recoveries made from the debtors; and (v) Bond of Bank of India NRE A/c - After scrupulously examining the issue with reference to the AO s remand report, the ld. CIT (A) arrived at a conclusion in a well thoughtout manner that the addition of Rs.67.01 lakhs made u/s 69 of the Act as undisclosed investment in money lending business of the assessee was not justifiable. Since no rebuttal has been forth-coming from the Revenue side with any discreet documentary proof, we are of the considered view that the finding of the ld. CIT (A) requires to be sustained. Regarding agricultural land - Agricultural income of Rs.3- 4 lakhs per year - held that - all the evidences related to holding of agricultural land and income thereon were very much available in the seized material - Ld. D R drew our attention to the Remand Report of the AO and the preliminary statement recorded u/s 132 of the Act and in view of above, it was argued that the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in arriving at a conclusion that the assessee must be having net agricultural income of around Rs.3- 4 lakhs per annum which, according to the Ld. D R, doesn t command any merit - If the Revenue doubted the very bona-fide of such certificates appears to have been originated from the lower level authorities of the Revenue Department of the State Government, what prevented it to cross verify the veracity of such Certificates at that relevant time itself is a question and answer to it lies at its doorstep - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs.2,60,057/- made on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs.57,908/- made on account of undisclosed investment in FDRs.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs.67,01,049/- made on account of undisclosed investment in money lending business.
4. Deletion of addition of Rs.15,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed investment in financing for vehicles.
5. Deletion of addition of Rs.1,31,000/- made on account of undisclosed investment in Lakshmi Hardware shop.
6. Agricultural income of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs per annum.

Analysis:

I) Deletion of addition of Rs.2,60,057/- made on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery:

The AO argued that the jewellery found during the search was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee, who initially claimed it was received as streedhan and from agricultural income but failed to provide documentary proof. The CIT (A) accepted the explanation that 60 tolas of jewellery should be considered as explained, including streedhan and purchases during the block period, and allowed telescoping of Rs.96,240/- from the admitted interest income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, finding it reasonable.

II) Deletion of addition of Rs.57,908/- made on account of undisclosed investment in FDs:

The AO treated the investment in FDRs as undisclosed due to lack of satisfactory explanation. The CIT (A) found that Rs.4,000/- belonged to a third party and the remaining Rs.33,908/- was explained through agricultural income and additional interest income disclosed by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A), noting the substantial agricultural income and additional interest income justified the deletion.

III) Deletion of addition of Rs.67,01,049/- made on account of undisclosed investment in money lending business:

The AO added Rs.67,01,049/- based on incriminating documents found during the search. The CIT (A) examined sources such as agricultural income, NRE account withdrawals, gifts, and recoveries from debtors, and found the sources sufficient to explain the deficit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s detailed analysis and deletion of the addition, noting the AO's failure to examine the evidences properly.

IV) Deletion of addition of Rs.15,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed investment in financing for vehicles:

The AO added Rs.15,00,000/- based on the discrepancy between the assessee's statement and the partner of Yogi Automobiles' statement. The CIT (A) found this addition to be a duplication of the entries already considered in the Rs.67,01,049/- addition. The Tribunal agreed, noting no fresh material was brought to dispute the CIT (A)'s finding.

V) Deletion of addition of Rs.1,31,000/- made on account of undisclosed investment in Lakshmi Hardware shop:

The AO added Rs.1,31,000/- based on a sale deed found during the search, which the assessee claimed was funded by agricultural income. The CIT (A) accepted this explanation, noting the agricultural income was sufficient to cover the investment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, finding no cause for interference.

VI) Agricultural income of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs per annum:

The AO disputed the assessee's claim of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs annual agricultural income based on the assessee's statement during the search. The CIT (A) found the claim credible based on seized documents, certificates from local authorities, and the nature of the crops produced. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s conclusion, noting the AO's failure to provide contrary evidence and the reasonable estimation of agricultural income.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decisions on all counts, finding the deletions of additions and the estimation of agricultural income reasonable and adequately supported by evidence. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.