2015 (10) TMI 2169 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed investment - accrual of income - Held that - In respect of amount related to VFS (India) Pvt. Ltd., the assessee has placed on record a certificate from VFS (India) Pvt. Ltd. that no amount was paid to the assessee after 1st April, 2004. However, Assessing Officer has not made enquiry from concerned VFS (India) Pvt. Ltd. and proceeded to make addition on assumption basis. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer ought to have verified from the concerned party about the veracity of the certificate which is enclosed at page 9 of paper book. Considering the signature made at the certificate enclosed one of the sundry creditor is Mr. George Thomas whose signature matches with the certificate on page 9 of the paper book. Under these facts, it can be inferred that the finding of the authorities is ill founded and cannot be sustained. As no contrary material has been placed by the Revenue and gathered any material by making enquiry in this respect, we hereby direct the Assessing Officer to delete the amount for VFS (India) Pvt. Ltd. In respect of Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., it cannot be inferred that no service was provided post 1st April, 2004. As it is clearly mentioned in the cancellation agreement that the service provider was rendering services till 14.10.2005 and the payments for the services rendered till 14.10.2005 was made on 1st April, 2004. The assessee has not placed any confirmation from the concerned parities clarifying the position. Under these facts, we are unable to accept the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The addition made in respect of M/s. Kuoni travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. is hereby sustained In respect of Prabhat Automation,Hon ble Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2004-05 has held that the assessee had merely possessed the right thereof which is not equivalent to ownership right though the assessee is described as owner in this case, we find that the Assessing Officer had made no effort to find out whether the particular property was vacant, during year under consideration. Under these facts, we do not see any reason to sustain the finding of authorities below. Hence, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made on account of presumed income received from M/s. Prabhat Automation - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of bringing to tax amounts not received/receivable by the appellant.
2. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 23,85,738/-.
3. Disregarding evidence/confirmation letters filed by the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Bringing to Tax Amounts Not Received/Receivable by the Appellant:

The primary issue revolves around the amounts brought to tax by the Assessing Officer (AO), which were not received or receivable by the appellant. The AO made a disallowance of Rs. 32,32,404/-, treating it as undisclosed income. The appellant contended that the impugned income neither accrued to nor was received by them. The AO's stance was based on agreements with various parties like Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., VFS India Pvt. Ltd., and Prabhat Automation, which were purportedly valid during the financial year under consideration. However, the appellant argued that these contracts were terminated before the expiry of their terms, and no payments were received post-termination.

2. Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 23,85,738/-:

The CIT(A) partly allowed the appellant's appeal, sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs. 23,85,738/-. The AO had initially added Rs. 32,32,404/- as undisclosed income based on the agreements. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- from Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 8,64,000/- and Rs. 3,19,368/- from VFS India Pvt. Ltd., and Rs. 58,500/- from Prabhat Automation. The CIT(A) justified these additions by stating that the appellant failed to provide convincing evidence to show that no income was earned from these entities during the relevant period.

3. Disregarding Evidence/Confirmation Letters Filed by the Appellant:

The appellant submitted various pieces of evidence, including letters and certificates from VFS India Pvt. Ltd. and Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., stating that no payments were made post-termination of the agreements. However, the AO and CIT(A) disregarded these documents, considering them self-serving and unsupported by corroborative evidence. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not verify the veracity of these documents directly from the concerned parties, which was a significant lapse.

Detailed Judgment Analysis:

The Tribunal examined the rival contentions and the material on record. It found that the AO made additions based on assumptions without verifying the claims from the concerned parties. For instance, the certificate from VFS India Pvt. Ltd. indicated no payments post-April 1, 2004, but the AO did not verify this claim. The Tribunal noted that the AO should have confirmed the details from VFS India Pvt. Ltd. before making the addition.

Regarding Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal observed that the cancellation agreement dated April 1, 2004, indicated termination of the contract with immediate effect. Despite this, the AO and CIT(A) inferred that services were rendered till October 14, 2005, based on the agreement's terms. The Tribunal found this interpretation flawed, as no payments were due post-termination.

For Prabhat Automation, the Tribunal highlighted that the AO did not verify whether the property was vacant during the relevant period. The Tribunal referred to a previous Tribunal decision in the appellant's case, which held that mere possession of the property did not equate to ownership. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 58,500/- was unjustified.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 19,71,435/- related to VFS India Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 58,500/- related to Prabhat Automation. However, it sustained the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- related to Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was partly allowed, providing relief to the appellant for the amounts where sufficient evidence was disregarded or not verified by the AO.