2015 (6) TMI 421 - AT - Income Tax

Suppression of profit - impounded material during the course of survey u/s 133A from the assessee premises - Whether the income from the project is to be assessed in the year under consideration? - CIT(A) delete the addition - Held that - Out of the actual sale consideration of flats at ₹ 5,63,27,300/-, the amount received by the assessee till the end of the accounting year relevant to assessment year under consideration was only ₹ 52,95,000/-. Thus, the sale consideration received was not even 10% of the total sale consideration of the flats. Not a single sale deed was executed. From these facts, it is evident that the project under consideration was far from completion during the accounting year relevant to assessment year under consideration. The income from the project under consideration during the year under consideration was not assessable in this year, because the project was not completed. Once the income is not assessable, the question of determination of quantum of income from the said project is only academic. - Decided against revenue. Unexplained labour expenditure u/s 69C - CIT(A) delete the addition - Held that - the profit and loss accounts found at the time of survey is only an estimated profit and loss account in which projected profit is worked out which the assessee expected to earn on the completion of the project. From the profit & loss account found at the time of survey, we find that on income side there was a credit of ₹ 5,63,27,300/- with the narration contract work income . The assessee is not doing any contract work, but this amount was the sale consideration which the assessee was expected to receive on the execution of sale deed of the flats booked till the date of survey. At the expenditure side, there is no debit for the value of the land or the opening work-in-progress. Considering the totality of these facts as well as the factual finding recorded by the CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) was fully justified in holding that in the absence of any corroborative evidences indicating the fact that assessee actually incurred more expenditure than what was shown in the books of accounts, no addition u/s 69C can be made. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) with regard - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of the transportation exp. - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) has recorded the finding that the assessee had filed the relevant invoices issued by the parties to whom the payment of transportation charges have been made. The assessee has also deducted TDS from the payment of transportation charges. Thus, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that from these evidences the nature of the expenditure stands clearly explained. After considering the facts of the case and arguments of both the sides, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Unexplained investment in land - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The issue whether the purchase price shown by the assessee at ₹ 7,31,000/- is the correct purchase price or not is not relevant in the year under consideration. The year under appeal before us is Assessment Year 2007-08 and the relevant previous year would be 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. Admittedly, the assessee purchased the said plot of land on 16.02.2006 which would fall in the Assessment Year 2006-07. We, therefore, hold that the issue of addition u/s 69 in respect of purchase of land as on 16.02.2006 cannot be considered in Assessment Year 2007-08. Therefore, any addition for alleged understatement of purchase price of plot purchased on 16.02.2006 cannot be sustained in Assessment Year 2007-08. With this remark, we hold that the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) for unexplained investment in the purchase of plot was fully justified - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The CIT(A) has treated this ground as infructuous as additions made to the income of assessee stand deleted and did not give any finding on merit. Thus, the Ground of the Revenue s appeal is misconceived and the same is rejected being misconceived.- Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of suppression of profit.
2. Deletion of addition under Section 69C on account of unexplained labour charges.
3. Deletion of addition on account of transportation expenses.
4. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in land.
5. Claim of deduction under Section 80IB.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Suppression of Profit:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,94,17,251/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) based on a Trading and Profit & Loss account found during a survey. The A.O. treated this amount as business income for the year. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the Profit & Loss account found was a rough estimate and the project was not completed in the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee followed the project completion method and the project was completed in a subsequent year, making the income not assessable in the current year.

2. Deletion of Addition under Section 69C on Account of Unexplained Labour Charges:
The A.O. added Rs. 29,70,895/- as unexplained expenditure based on a discrepancy between the labour charges shown in the audited accounts and a loose paper found during the survey. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of corroborative evidence and the fact that the actual labour payments were supported by bills and vouchers. The Tribunal agreed, stating that no addition under Section 69C could be made without evidence of actual expenditure beyond what was recorded in the books.

3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Transportation Expenses:
The A.O. disallowed transportation expenses of Rs. 2,57,358/-, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate the expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee provided relevant invoices and deducted TDS on the payments. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the expenses were genuine and substantiated.

4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in Land:
The A.O. added Rs. 4,41,28,000/- as unexplained investment based on a valuation by the State Bank of Mysore, which was significantly higher than the purchase price recorded by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the purchase occurred in the previous assessment year (2006-07), making the addition in the current year (2007-08) inappropriate.

5. Claim of Deduction under Section 80IB:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB. However, the Tribunal clarified that the CIT(A) did not make any finding on this issue, as it became infructuous due to the deletion of the additions. Therefore, this ground was rejected as misconceived.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions of the additions on all grounds. The order was pronounced on 12th June 2015 at Ahmedabad.