2015 (11) TMI 542 - AT - Income Tax

Protective assessment - Addition on investment in land from undisclosed income - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) noted that the appellant/assessee was able to convince the AO that it had only made cheque payments to M/s Om Metal and no cash payment has been made by the assessee company. The CIT(A) also noted that the cash payment has been made by M/s Om Metal and the property was not purchased in the name of present assessee and as such there is not enough evidence to allege cash payment to the assessee and the AO also does not say that cash payment was made by the assessee. Furthermore, the CIT(A) also concluded that even if the amount paid, including cash portion, on the above transaction is taken at ₹ 75 crores (including ₹ 20 crores advance). For another 10 acre land, the extant assessee s share in the said amount worked out to much less than the amount paid by the assessee by cheque. In this situation, when the AO accepts that the cash payment has been made by M/s Om Metal then protective addition in the hands of assessee is not sustainable and the same was correctly deleted by the first appellate authority i.e. CIT(A). We are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order and we uphold the same on this ground. - Decided against revenue. Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - While we analyse last operative paras of CIT(A), it is amply clear that the AO added as received from NKP Holding Pvt. Ltd. (NKPH) on three different dates and source of the same was fully explained as the bank account was maintained by Shri N.K. Jain in his name which appeared in the copy of the bank statement. These entries were very well reflected in the bank statement of account with Punjab National Bank. The CIT(A) also noted that confirmation from NKPH was submitted before the AO during assessment proceedings and from the assessment order for AY 2007-08 passed in the case of NKPH, the AO has not disturbed the returned amount and the same has been accepted. In view of above noted facts, the CIT(A) rightly concluded that the amount added by the AO was received by the assessee from NKPH and when there is no adverse inference in the case of NKPH, the same cannot be held as unexplained in the case of assessee. Hence, we are in agreement with the conclusion of the CIT(A) that the protective addition in the hands of assessee is not sustainable and he rightly directed the AO to delete the same.- Decided against revenue. Unexplained cash credit - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) correctly appreciated the relevant facts of the case and rightly held that amounts received by the assessee were received by the assessee from M/s Macro Leafin, a group concern which was also assessed by the same AO and when there is no adverse finding in the case of M/s Macro, there is no valid ground to treat the same amount as unexplained in the case of the assessee. Hence, CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective addition in the case of the assessee and we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the same and we uphold the conclusion of the CIT(A) on this sole issue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,26,00,000/- made by AO on account of investment in land from undisclosed income.
2. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 63,00,000/- made by AO under Section 68 of the IT Act on a protective basis.
3. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- made by AO under Section 68 of the IT Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,26,00,000/- made by AO on account of investment in land from undisclosed income
The Revenue contended that the assessee's share in the cash payment of Rs. 34.70 crores for the purchase of land was Rs. 2.26 crores, considered as an investment from undisclosed income. The AO made a protective addition in the hands of the assessee and a substantive addition in the hands of M/s Om Metal Developers Private Limited. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee only made cheque payments to Om Metal, and no cash payment was made by the assessee. The property was not purchased in the name of the assessee, and there was no evidence to attribute the cash payment to the assessee. The CIT(A) concluded that even if the total amount paid, including the cash portion, was considered, the assessee's share was less than the amount paid by cheque. Therefore, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee was not sustainable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's ground.

Issue 2: Deletion of the addition of Rs. 63,00,000/- made by AO under Section 68 of the IT Act on a protective basis
The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 63,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee, considering the amount as unexplained. The CIT(A) observed that the amount was received through banking channels and was duly reflected in the assessee's bank accounts. The CIT(A) noted that the complete books of accounts, bank statements, and transactions were explained to the AO, and no adverse inference was drawn. The amount represented share application money received from NKP Holding Pvt. Ltd., a group concern also assessed by the same AO. The CIT(A) concluded that the amount was fully explained and deleted the protective addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's ground.

Issue 3: Deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- made by AO under Section 68 of the IT Act
The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee, considering the transactions as unexplained. The CIT(A) observed that the amounts were received through banking channels and were duly reflected in the assessee's bank accounts. The CIT(A) noted that the complete books of accounts, bank statements, and transactions were explained to the AO, and no adverse inference was drawn. The amount represented share application money received from Macro Leafin Pvt. Ltd., a group concern also assessed by the same AO. The CIT(A) concluded that the amount was fully explained and deleted the protective addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's ground.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders for all the issues, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the facts and evidence, and the protective additions made by the AO were not sustainable. The amounts in question were received through banking channels, duly reflected in the assessee's bank accounts, and were fully explained. Therefore, the deletions of the additions by the CIT(A) were upheld.