2015 (9) TMI 274 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s.68 - CIT(A) restricted part addition - Held that - The finding of the ld. CIT(A) that there were transactions of cash deposit and withdrawal. This fact is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. We are of the considered view where there are deposit and withdrawal entries into the bank account, it would be presumed that the amount withdrawn was available with the assessee for depositing the same. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the entire deposits were from unexplained source. We do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the ld. CIT(A), the same is hereby upheld. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of interest expenditure paid towards interest paid to HDFC secured loan - CIT(A) deleted the addition admitting additional evidence - Held that - There is no specific submission as what were the evidences which were considered by the ld. CIT(A) without giving opportunity to the AO and/or the evidences which were not available before the AO. Therefore, this contention of the Revenue is also devoid of any merit. Thus, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A), same is hereby upheld - Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Admission of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
3. Disallowance of interest on bank loan.
4. General grounds for upholding the Assessing Officer's order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Restriction of Addition Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] unjustifiably restricted the addition to Rs. 3,30,150 out of a total of Rs. 24,75,200 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained credit. The AO had made the addition based on AIR information revealing undisclosed bank accounts. The assessee argued that the omission to include the bank account was an unintentional mistake by the accountant and that the deposits were re-deposits from previous withdrawals. The CIT(A) found that the cash deposits were from earlier withdrawals, except for Rs. 3,30,150 which was unexplained. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding, agreeing that the transactions of cash deposits and withdrawals indicated that the amount withdrawn was available for redepositing, thus rejecting the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

2. Admission of Additional Evidence in Violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not specify which evidence was admitted without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. As such, this contention was deemed meritless, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

3. Disallowance of Interest on Bank Loan:
The AO disallowed Rs. 1,95,470 as interest expenditure, questioning the utilization of the loan for business purposes. The CIT(A) examined the ledger account and found that while some funds were used for business, Rs. 7,01,200 was given to partners without business purposes. Consequently, the CIT(A) proportionately reduced the disallowance to Rs. 65,090. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the CIT(A)'s findings were not contested by the Revenue with any contrary material.

4. General Grounds for Upholding the Assessing Officer's Order:
The Revenue's general grounds for upholding the AO's order were dismissed as they required no independent adjudication.

Cross Objection by the Assessee:
The assessee's cross-objection contested the addition of Rs. 3,30,150 under Section 68. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that this amount was unexplained, thus rejecting the cross-objection.

Conclusion:
Both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings on the restriction of addition under Section 68, the proportionate disallowance of interest expenditure, and the handling of additional evidence. The order was pronounced on August 20, 2015, at Ahmedabad.

← Previous Next →