2015 (10) TMI 87 - HC - Income Tax

Addition being interest paid, brokerage paid and loans taken from certain others - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - We find that both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have reached the concurrent finding of fact that all amounts which have gone to reduce the cost of land to the extent of interest attributable to the payment made before the due date, the brokerage charges paid on behalf of vendor and non-return of loan of ₹ 10 lakhs by the vendor-M/ s Shakti to the respondent-assessee. All these were indications of the fact that the above amounts are those for which credit has been given by vendor-M/ s Shakti to the respondent-assessee. Moreover, two authorities under the Act have reached concurrent finding of fact and these findings not been shown to be perverse or arbitrary. The view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible view on the basis of documents and evidence led before it. Accordingly, Question No.1 does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. Addition on amount paid to a certain VT - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - Appeal admitted on substantial question of law at Question No.2.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the deletion of various additions made by the Assessing Officer?
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the deletion of an amount paid to a certain party?

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The first issue revolved around the Tribunal confirming the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The respondent explained that certain payments were made to reduce the cost of land, supported by documents during survey proceedings. The CIT(A) accepted the explanations and deleted the additions. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the payments were genuine and reduced the land cost. The Tribunal found the explanations plausible based on evidence and documents, leading to the dismissal of this issue as no substantial question of law arose.

Issue 2:
The second issue concerned the deletion of an amount paid to a specific party. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete this addition as well. The respondent had paid the amount to the party, which was later credited by the vendor, reducing the consideration payable. The Tribunal found supporting evidence, including a letter from the vendor confirming the transaction. As both lower authorities had concurrent findings based on evidence, the Tribunal's decision was deemed reasonable and no substantial question of law arose. Therefore, the appeal was admitted only on the substantial question of law related to the second issue, while the first issue was not entertained.