2015 (9) TMI 62 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of unaccounted payment of ₹ 20 lacs added u/s. 158BC - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Revenue s sole endeavor is to get restored the impugned addition of ₹ 20 lacs by way of unaccounted investment unearthed in the course of search. It has come on record that balance sum of ₹ 45 lacs already stood declared in the return. The Assessing Officer himself observes that this remaining sum of ₹ 20 lacs was yet to be paid after the search in question. Meaning thereby the Revenue fails to lead any evidence much less a cogent one to prove actual payment of ₹ 20 lacs in question. We uphold the CIT(A) s in these peculiar facts and rejects the Revenue s arguments accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unaccounted payment of Rs. 20 lacs during the block period from 01.04.1986 to 27.02.1997 under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 20 lacs as unaccounted payment during the block period. The original assessee, engaged in metals scrap trading, had a search conducted in 1997 leading to the seizure of incriminating material. The Assessing Officer added various amounts to the assessment, which were subsequently deleted by the CIT(A) in 2000. However, a co-ordinate bench directed a re-examination by the Assessing Officer due to certain discrepancies in the assessment. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer added the impugned sum of Rs. 20 lacs as unaccounted payment, leading to the appeal by the assessee.

The CIT(A) accepted the appellant's grounds challenging the addition. The Assessing Officer based the addition on the assertion that the total deal amount was Rs. 65 lacs, out of which Rs. 45 lacs were disclosed, leaving Rs. 20 lacs outstanding. However, the CIT(A) found discrepancies in the evidence presented by the Assessing Officer, especially regarding the actual payment of the remaining Rs. 20 lacs. The CIT(A) noted conflicting statements from individuals involved in the transaction, leading to the conclusion that the evidence for the addition was lacking.

Upon review, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 20 lacs. The tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide concrete evidence of the payment of the disputed amount, especially considering that the balance sum was declared in the return and was stated to be unpaid post the search. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support the addition.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the Rs. 20 lacs addition as unaccounted payment during the block period. The decision was based on the insufficiency of evidence provided by the Revenue to substantiate the addition, ultimately upholding the CIT(A)'s order in favor of the assessee.