2014 (3) TMI 112 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion made on account of low withdrawal for household expenses Held that - CIT(A) was of the view that the AO has failed to bring on record any cogent material to justify the addition - The grievance of the revenue is devoid of any sustainable merit - there was no incriminating material whatsoever to suggest as to any expenditure which has not been duly explained by the available fund of the assessee and has not otherwise been disclosed by the assessee - The estimation resorted to by the AO was also not based on any evidence or material in support of such estimation thus, the order of the CIT(A) upheld Decided against Revenue. Deletion made u/s 69C of the Act Undisclosed expenditure/investment in house property difference between valuation Reference made to valuation officer u/s 55A of the Act - Held that - It cannot be said that any incriminating material or evidence was found during the search & seizure operation - CIT(A) has rightly noticed that in the absence of any such material the very reference to Valuation Officer is vitiated in law - No defect or shortcomings were found in the details submitted by the assessee so as to justify the reference to the Valuation Officer - The difference between the value as per valuation report and expenses as per the books of account is reduced to less than 15% which can also be justified on account of normal permissible estimation difference thus, the order of the CIT(A) upheld Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.38,000 on account of low withdrawal for household expenses.
2. Addition of Rs.19,81,041 under section 69C for undisclosed expenditure/investment in house property.

Issue 1 - Addition of Rs.38,000 for low withdrawal for household expenses:
The Assessing Officer challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs.38,000 on account of low withdrawal for household expenses. The AO estimated household expenses at Rs.96,000 for the year, considering the size of the assessee's family and standard of living. The CIT(A) found no incriminating material to support the addition and concluded that the AO failed to justify the addition. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's estimation lacked evidence or material support, leading to the dismissal of ground no.1.

Issue 2 - Addition of Rs.19,81,041 under section 69C for undisclosed expenditure/investment in house property:
The AO made an addition of Rs.19,81,041 as unexplained expenditure based on the Valuation Officer's estimation of renovation expenses, which differed from the assessee's declared expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the reference to the Valuation Officer was unjustified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO did not address the objections raised by the assessee on the valuation report. The ITAT considered the appraisal report as non-incriminating and emphasized that the construction quality did not constitute incriminating material without evidence of suppressed expenses. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that no incriminating material was found, and the reference to the Valuation Officer was unjustified, leading to the dismissal of ground no.2. The appeal filed by the Revenue was ultimately dismissed by the ITAT.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in both issues, emphasizing the lack of incriminating material and justification for the additions made by the AO. The judgment highlights the importance of evidence and material support in making additions during income tax assessments, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.