2013 (10) TMI 974 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made on account of debit entries because of investment in bunglows and set-off allowed out of this addition - Set-off allowed of the amount of Rs.10,56,530/- representing the addition made on account of loan amounts to be recovered from various parties as also certain unexplained expenses against the addition of Rs.40 lakhs Held that - Addition was made by the AO and confirmed by ld.CIT(A) on this basis that these amounts were mostly in the form of credits and, therefore, the addition is sustained, but set off is allowed against the addition of Rs.40 lakhs on account of investment in bungalow - Addition is already confirmed by ld.CIT(A) and set off allowed by him of this addition against addition sustained by him in respect of investment in bungalow cannot be faulted because this addition is on account of credit entries and addition in respect of bungalow is on account of debit entries and, therefore, the set off allowed by the ld.CIT(A) cannot be faulted without showing that this amount was used elsewhere and not in the bungalow Decided against the Revenue. Addition on the basis of loose papers Held that - Addition made by the AO are without any particulars or date or name etc. and, therefore, these are dump-papers and cannot be made the basis for addition. This finding of the ld.CIT(A) could not be controverted by the ld.DR of the Revenue by bringing any evidence on record to show that this essential information such as date, name or particulars are available on the seized paper on the basis of which the addition was made by the AO and, hence, the ground of revenue is rejected Decided against the Revenue. Addition on account of cheque received from Mr. Bakshi - A cheque of Rs.50 lacs was given by Shri K.I.Bakshi of Bombay to the assessee for a loan @ 15%. The said cheque should never be encashed Held that - As per newspaper report, Shri K.I.Bakshi has already died during earthquake in Bhuj. Under these facts, in our considered opinion, no such addition is justified because the AO could not establish that any amount was received by the assessee from Shri K.I.Bhakshi or any amount was given by the assessee to Shri Bhakshi.

Issues Involved:
1. Unaccounted investment in bungalow.
2. Unaccounted investment in the purchase of a plot.
3. Post-dated cheques found.
4. Loan given to Smt. Kusumben and unexplained payment to Shri Jatinbhai, Advocate.
5. Unaccounted money advanced to Jagdish Chavana Sweet Mart.
6. Set-off of amounts against the addition sustained on account of investment in bungalow.
7. Unaccounted loan given to Shri Bholabhai Patel.
8. Unaccounted loans given by the assessee to various persons.
9. Unaccounted loan given to Shri K.I. Bakshi.
10. Protective addition in respect of unaccounted advance paid to Sanjeev Rajiv Shukla.
11. Set-off of amounts representing loans given to various parties and unaccounted household expenses against the addition sustained on account of investment in bungalow.
12. Advance to Shri Suresh Joitaram.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Unaccounted Investment in Bungalow:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs.8,31,000/- out of Rs.48,31,000/- added for unaccounted investment in a bungalow, while the assessee contested the confirmation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal found that the property was jointly owned by the assessee and his wife, and that the total value should be Rs.38,00,000/-. The Tribunal confirmed an addition of Rs.15,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee, allowing the benefit of telescoping, resulting in a net addition of Rs.16,212/-.

2. Unaccounted Investment in the Purchase of a Plot:
The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.8,00,000/- added for unaccounted investment in a plot, while the assessee contested the confirmation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal found no valid basis for the addition as the valuation report was close to the declared amount. The entire addition was deleted.

3. Post-Dated Cheques Found:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs.29,25,540/- added based on post-dated cheques. The Tribunal upheld the deletion as the cheques belonged to other parties and were not encashed by the assessee.

4. Loan Given to Smt. Kusumben and Unexplained Payment to Shri Jatinbhai, Advocate:
The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.55,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the deletion as the transactions were not related to the assessee.

5. Unaccounted Money Advanced to Jagdish Chavana Sweet Mart:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs.3,17,500/-. The Tribunal upheld the deletion as the transaction did not materialize and the cheque was old.

6. Set-off of Amounts Against the Addition Sustained on Account of Investment in Bungalow:
The Revenue contested the set-off of Rs.10,56,530/-, Rs.3,74,000/-, and Rs.53,258/- against the addition of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the set-off as the amounts were credits and the addition was on account of debit entries.

7. Unaccounted Loan Given to Shri Bholabhai Patel:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs.2,63,00,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the deletion as the loose papers were without particulars and could not be the basis for the addition.

8. Unaccounted Loans Given by the Assessee to Various Persons:
The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs.56,96,060/- out of Rs.67,97,610/- added for unaccounted loans, while the assessee contested the confirmation of Rs.11,01,550/-. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition as the documents were dumb and rough papers.

9. Unaccounted Loan Given to Shri K.I. Bakshi:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the deletion as the cheque given by Shri Bakshi was not encashed, and there was no evidence of the transaction.

10. Protective Addition in Respect of Unaccounted Advance Paid to Sanjeev Rajiv Shukla:
The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs.7,50,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the deletion as the addition was made on protective basis and the papers were related to another person.

11. Set-off of Amounts Representing Loans Given to Various Parties and Unaccounted Household Expenses Against the Addition Sustained on Account of Investment in Bungalow:
The Revenue contested the set-off of Rs.3,74,000/- and Rs.53,258/-. The Tribunal upheld the set-off as the amounts were credits and the addition was on account of debit entries.

12. Advance to Shri Suresh Joitaram:
The assessee contested the confirmation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the addition as the detailed accounts reflected the amount and the explanation given by the assessee was not valid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal, making specific adjustments and deletions based on the merits of each issue. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and the validity of documents in making additions for unaccounted investments and loans.

← Previous Next →