2013 (4) TMI 194 - HC - Income Tax

Addition U/s 69 - unexplained investment - Assessee had disclosed that it had paid a sum of Rs.41.80 crores, in fact, it had purchased assets worth Rs.64.38 crores - Held that - Tribunal had gone to the extent of examining the books of the respondent/ assessee and confirming that the opening entries in the books of the assessee after the slump purchase had shown the assets at Rs.64.38 crores as a result of transfer from Dhillon Kool to the respondent/ assessee. The entire extent of Rs.64.38 crores had been accepted both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also by the Tribunal. These are clear findings of fact and, therefore, cannot be disturbed unless and until some perversity is pointed. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding an addition made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for alleged unexplained investment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning an addition of Rs.22.58 crores under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained investment. The revenue contended that the respondent had purchased assets worth Rs.64.38 crores while disclosing only Rs.41.80 crores, resulting in the unexplained investment of Rs.22.58 crores.

2. The assessee claimed to have purchased assets through a slump purchase, with plant and machinery valued at Rs.13.82 crores and goodwill at Rs.50.56 crores, totaling Rs.64.38 crores. The payment of Rs.41.80 crores was made by discharging liabilities as per the Business Transfer Agreement, with Rs.6.50 crores paid directly to Dhillon Kool.

3. Additionally, the assessee took over liabilities mentioned in Schedule II of the Business Transfer Agreement amounting to Rs.15.80 crores and incurred liabilities against specific assets taken over, including Rs.5.53 crores for leased assets and Rs.1.25 crores for transaction costs. The total liabilities taken over amounted to Rs.6.78 crores.

4. The revenue argued a dispute regarding the Rs.5.53 crores allegedly incurred towards liabilities for assets mentioned in clause 1.1 of the Business Transfer Agreement. The authorities below were criticized for not including this amount, as per the revenue's counsel.

5. The assessee's representative clarified that the Rs.5.53 crores was accounted for in the Business Transfer Agreement under leased assets, as indicated in clause 2.2.2 of the agreement. The Tribunal and Commissioner of Income Tax had examined the issue, confirming the inclusion of Rs.5.53 crores for leased assets.

6. The Tribunal's order detailed the assets acquired by the assessee, the liabilities taken over, and the corresponding entries in the books of accounts, totaling Rs.64.38 crores. The Tribunal affirmed the acceptance of the entire amount, including the liabilities, as per the agreement.

7. The Tribunal's findings, supported by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), were considered as factual and conclusive. The absence of any legal question for consideration led to the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.

Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal as no legal question requiring consideration arose from the Tribunal's findings and the factual acceptance of the assets and liabilities by the authorities.