2012 (11) TMI 282 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of Rs 25 lacs made on account of on-money paid for purchase of land on basis of seized paper - AY 2001-02 - Held that - Addition was deleted by CIT(A) on the basis that on the basis of the seized paper, an amount of Rs.60 lacs was taxed in the A.Y.2000-2001 and on the same paper, the investment of Rs.25 lacs was mentioned. No reason found to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue, because admittedly, when the income has been taxed, no separate addition can be made in respect of application of the same income in making investment, unless some material is brought on record to show that income taxed in the earlier year was utilised somewhere else and the investment in question is not by way of utilisation of that income - Decided against Revenue Addition made on account of income from house property - assessee engaged in the business of construction activity - shops constructed in complex held as stock-in-trade - property lying vacant - Held that - Assessee is in the business of construction, it cannot be said that the shops in question were not held by the assessee as stock-in-trade without bringing any adverse material on record. CIT(A) deleted the addition placing reliance on decision in case of Neha Builders Pvt Ltd (2006 (8) TMI 105 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). Nothing could be brought on record by Revenue that aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the present case Addition on account of low household withdrawals - Held that - There is no basis of estimating household expenditure of the present year of Rs.2,00,000/-. If the AO is depending on the statement of the wife of the assessee, then annual expenditure comes to only Rs.1.44 lakhs, even if it is calculated at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month. The assessee has declared household expenses at Rs.1.54 lakhs and hence, no addition on this count is called for. Partial addition for alleged income from house property - Held that - Annual value of this property was estimated by the AO at Rs.5,000/- per month. The claim of the assessee is that for the purpose of computing the annual value of property, which was not actually let out, the municipal valuation should be the basis of determining the annual value. AO directed to compute the municipal value of this property as annual value and then compute the income assessable under the head income from house property . Addition for alleged on money paid for purchase of land - assessee contended that on the basis of the seized paper, an amount of Rs.60 lacs was taxed in the A.Y.2000-2001 and investments were out of income declared by the assessee - Held that - Claim of the assessee should be accepted in the interest of justice because three noting on the seized paper of Rs.7 lakhs, Rs.10.25 lakhs and Rs.9.7 lakhs are not in the nature of long term investment, and therefore, it appears to be acceptable that atleast Rs.15 lakhs were also received back out of this total amount of Rs.26.42 lakhs. We, therefore, delete this addition on the basis that this investment is also out of income declared by the assessee of Rs.60.20 lakhs in A.Y.2000-2001. Dis-allowance of depreciation of motor car on ground that assessee did not debit expenses on running and maintenance of vehicle in the profit and loss account - Held that - CIT(A) deleted the addition on finding that an amount of Rs.1,779/- has been debited by the assessee as vehicle expenditure in the profit & loss account. Finding of the CIT(A) could not be controverted by the Revenue - Decided against Revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of on-money paid for purchase of land.
2. Deletion of addition on account of income from house property.
3. Deletion of addition on account of low household withdrawals.
4. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of depreciation on motor car.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of On-Money Paid for Purchase of Land:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 25,00,000/- added for on-money paid for land purchase. The CIT(A) noted that Rs. 60,20,000/- was taxed in A.Y. 2000-01 based on seized paper, which also indicated the investment of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The CIT(A) held that taxing the same income again in A.Y. 2001-02 was unjustified. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that without evidence showing the income taxed in the earlier year was used elsewhere, no separate addition could be made. Thus, the ground was dismissed.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Income from House Property:
The Revenue's appeal contested the deletion of Rs. 2,34,000/- added as income from house property. The CIT(A) found that the shops were held as stock-in-trade, following judgments from the Hon'ble Madras and Gujarat High Courts. The Tribunal agreed, noting the assessee's involvement in construction business and the lack of contrary evidence from the Revenue. Consequently, this ground was also dismissed.

3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Low Household Withdrawals:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 45,389/- added for low household withdrawals. The CIT(A) noted the assessee's wife stated household expenses were Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month, and the assessee declared Rs. 1,54,611/- for household expenses. The AO's estimate of Rs. 2,00,000/- lacked basis. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing this ground as well.

4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Disallowance of Depreciation on Motor Car:
The Revenue's appeal challenged the deletion of Rs. 5,87,212/- disallowed as depreciation on a motor car. The CIT(A) found that vehicle expenses were debited in the profit and loss account, contrary to the AO's claim. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the presence of vehicle maintenance expenses in the records. This ground was dismissed.

Separate Judgments:
- The Tribunal also addressed the assessee's cross-objections and appeals for different assessment years, consistently applying similar reasoning and legal precedents.
- For A.Y. 2002-2003, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding on-money payment, finding that the investment was from declared income.
- For A.Y. 2004-2005, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on income from house property and low household withdrawals, aligning with previous decisions.
- The Tribunal directed the AO to compute municipal value for properties not let out, as the basis for annual value, for multiple assessment years.

Conclusion:
In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on all grounds, upheld the CIT(A)'s deletions, and allowed the assessee's cross-objections and appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to reassess based on municipal values where applicable.

← Previous Next →