2015 (4) TMI 474 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in factory and building - AO has made the addition by observing that ₹ 12 lacs have been invested through cash based transactions for which the assessee has no explanation at all - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that - The assessee produced a statement showing availability of source of ₹ 12,00,000/ before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings and which shows there is no direct evidence regarding the cash transaction but the date on which such has taken place and the availability of cash on such date shows that there is plausible nexus, which explains the source. However, the details furnished by the assessee in this regard indicate that an amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- has been shown to be representing direct credit in capital account. However, in absence of relevant detail, the same cannot be accepted. Thus in our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 2,50,000/- and the rest of the amount i.e. ₹ 9,50,000/- is deleted. - Decided against revenue. Unexplained investment in machinery and generator - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - assessee has worked out the availability of fund on the relevant dates. Again it was found that though apparently there may not be direct nexus between the fund available and the investment made in machinery and generator but the circumstantial evidence pointed out by the learned counsel of the assessee that the dates on which cash withdrawals have been made from the various banks of the assessee and the dates on which expenditure has been incurred appears to be plausible explanation for which benefit cannot be denied to the assessee; Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 6,11 ,000/-. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Unexplained investment in form of cash deposits - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the preponderance of probabilities appears to be in favour of the assessee. However, while scrutinizing the date wise withdrawals and the date of deposit, it is seen that at five places apparently there are negative balances, which works out to ₹ 3,20,850/-. In the above circumstances, out of ₹ 17,07,250/-, for the amount to the extent of ₹ 3,20,850/-, the assessee could not give the source thereof. In view of the above, we find considerable cogency in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition of ₹ 13,86,400/- and ₹ 3,20,850/- is confirmed. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- Decided against revenue. Unexplained investment in car, furniture etc. - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that - CIT(A) has rightly observed that out of investment of ₹ 1 ,67,667/-, the source of investment to the extent of ₹ 77,223/- (margin money tor car), RS'.10,273/- (margin money for scooter and ₹ 16,000/- (for fax) appears satisfactorily explained to be out of BOP withdrawals. Hence there is no justification for making addition to such extent. However, as regards the investment in furniture to the extent of ₹ 64,171/-, the learned counsel of the assessee has explained the source there of to be out of available cash. Ld. CIT(A) held rightly held that this explanation is of general nature as the same is not supported by any proper evidence. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that out of ₹ 1,67,667/-, addition to the extent of ₹ 64, 171/- is confirmed and the balance addition of ₹ 1,03,496/- is deleted. Thus no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- Decided against revenue. 20% of expenditure incurred in violation of section 40A(3) - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that - CIT(A) has observed that on perusal of the assessment order it was seen that the AO has made the addition on the basis of presumption without bringing on record the specific transaction made in cash. In the absence of any categorical findings by the AO regarding specific transaction made in cash, no disallowance could be made as held by various Hon ble Courts. IN view of the above, we find considerable cogency in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) to estimate the disallowance of ₹ 11,60,000/- on account of 20% expenditure incurred in violation of section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Unexplained investment in factory and building.
2. Unexplained investment in machinery and generator.
3. Unexplained investment in the form of cash deposits in different bank accounts.
4. Unexplained investment in car, furniture, etc.
5. 20% of expenditure incurred in violation of section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Unexplained Investment in Factory and Building:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 19,00,000/- under the head unexplained investment in the factory building, which consisted of Rs. 12,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/-. The assessee declared an investment amounting to Rs. 37,00,000/- and explained that Rs. 25,00,000/- was received from her daughters through account payee cheques, and the remaining Rs. 12,00,000/- were cash-based transactions. The AO observed that the assessee neither furnished any cashbook nor cash flow statement, treating the same as unexplained income. The CIT(A) found plausible nexus for Rs. 9,50,000/- and confirmed Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no interference warranted.

2. Unexplained Investment in Machinery and Generator:
The assessee claimed to have invested Rs. 5.3 lacs in machinery and Rs. 80,000/- in a generator. The AO observed that no loan was obtained for the purchase, and the machinery was claimed to have been purchased in cash through books of accounts, which were never produced. The CIT(A) found a plausible explanation for the cash withdrawals and the dates of expenditure, deleting the addition of Rs. 6,11,000/-. The Tribunal agreed with this finding and upheld the deletion.

3. Unexplained Investment in the Form of Cash Deposits in Different Bank Accounts:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 17,07,250/- for unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) found that the dates of withdrawals and deposits were close, indicating that the cash withdrawals were deposited back into the bank account. However, there were negative balances amounting to Rs. 3,20,850/-, which were confirmed as unexplained. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 13,86,400/- and confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,20,850/-.

4. Unexplained Investment in Car, Furniture, etc.:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 6.92 lacs for unexplained investment in car, furniture, scooter, and fax. The CIT(A) found that the source of Rs. 1,67,667/- was satisfactorily explained, except for Rs. 64,171/- for furniture, which was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 1,03,496/- and confirmed the addition of Rs. 64,171/-.

5. 20% of Expenditure Incurred in Violation of Section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act:
The AO disallowed Rs. 11.60 lacs, observing that the assessee had huge cash withdrawals, suggesting payments in violation of section 40A(3). The CIT(A) found that the AO made the addition on a presumption basis without specific evidence of cash transactions. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 11.60 lacs, finding no categorical findings by the AO regarding specific cash transactions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on all counts, finding no interference warranted. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.