2012 (8) TMI 65 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s.69C being unaccounted expenditure & unaccounted investment - Held that - As opening cash balance was Rs.6.93 lakhs and Books of account were not written up-to-date because the partner could not explain the cash balance and cash utilized. The admission made by the partner appears to be in fear and without any evidence. The assessee has retracted the disclosure by the affidavit which A.O. has not considered the affidavit in framing of the assessment. The case is audited. The assessee had claimed that some of the expenses were paid through demand draft prior to date of survey. The Books of account has not been rejected by the A.O. at the time of assessment - CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition - in favour of assessee. Addition being unaccounted expenses on machinery - not supported by the vouchers - Held that - CIT(A) was correct in scaling down the addition of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/- goning through the reply of the assessee and order of the authority below that payments were made in cash and bills are not verifiable, therefore, we confirm the order of the CIT(A).

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act for unaccounted expenditure.
2. Deletion of addition for unaccounted investment in a building owned by V.M. Enterprise.
3. Scaling down of addition for expenses on machinery.

Issue 1: Deletion of addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act for unaccounted expenditure:
The appeal involved the Revenue contesting the deletion of an addition of Rs.4,26,059 under section 69C of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(A). The case stemmed from a survey conducted at the assessee's business premises, where additional unaccounted income was admitted. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the explanation provided by the assessee, citing incomplete books of accounts and fear of enforcement action as reasons for the disclosure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO did not point out deficiencies in the explanation provided by the assessee and that additions cannot solely rely on statements made during a survey.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition for unaccounted investment in a building owned by V.M. Enterprise:
The second ground of appeal pertained to the deletion of an addition of Rs.3,00,000 for unaccounted investment in a building owned by V.M. Enterprise. The AO had made the addition based on an admission made during the survey without additional evidence. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting that additions cannot be solely based on statements made during a survey and that the building belonged to V.M. Enterprise, not the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of substantiating evidence by the AO.

Issue 3: Scaling down of addition for expenses on machinery:
The final issue revolved around the scaling down of an addition for expenses on machinery. The AO had made an addition of Rs.25,000 due to lack of verifiability of expenses, which the CIT(A) reduced to Rs.15,000. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the payments were made in cash and bills were not verifiable, thus upholding the scaling down of the addition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the deletions and scaling down of additions. The judgment underscored the importance of substantiating additions with concrete evidence and highlighted the limitations of relying solely on statements made during surveys without further corroboration.