2016 (3) TMI 1328 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA - Addition of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case None of the sellers have been examined by the AO to strengthen his views that cash has been paid over and above the registered amount. There is not a single document/evidence of parties involved in the sale of land at different villages brought on record to show that an amount other than the payment of consideration has changed hands. No confession from the sellers have been brought on record. There being no evidence to support the revenue s case that use figure, whatever be its quantum, over and above the figure in the records and accounts changed hands between the parties, no addition could therefore be made under section 69C of the Act to the income of the assessee considering the entire facts brought on record, we have no hesitation to hold that even on merits no addition could be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders dated 29.11.2013 of CIT-(A)37, Mumbai by Assessing Officers (AO.s) regarding common issue of unexplained cash expenditure incurred in land acquisition.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The appellant, belonging to Jai Corp Group, was involved in Special Economic Zones (SEZ) development, purchasing land for future returns. Search operation under Section 132 revealed unaccounted cash payments for land acquisition, leading to an addition of Rs. 46,49,000 under section 69C by AO.

2. Penalty Proceedings: AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA, attributing the undisclosed cash expenditure as unaccounted income, levying a penalty of 10% on the assessed undisclosed income. Appellant contested, citing true income disclosure and lack of concrete evidence supporting the cash expenditure addition.

3. Appellate Proceedings: Appellant's appeal before FAA challenged the AO's addition under section 69C, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the cash payments found in seized documents. ITAT's order dated 22.03.2013 deleted the additions, questioning the basis of assumptions made by revenue authorities.

4. Tribunal's Decision: Tribunal highlighted the absence of direct evidence proving cash transactions, criticizing the revenue's reliance on seized documents without corroborative evidence from land sellers. Tribunal held that no cash transactions were conclusively established, leading to the deletion of additions on both legal and merit grounds.

5. Penalty Deletion: Considering the Tribunal's deletion of additions, the FAA upheld the deletion of penalty under section 271AAA, as the basis for penalty imposition was the same additions that were found unjustified. Consequently, all appeals filed by AO.s were dismissed, confirming the deletion of additions and penalties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision to delete the additions on both legal and merit grounds led to the dismissal of penalty imposition under section 271AAA. The lack of concrete evidence supporting the alleged cash transactions undermined the revenue's case, resulting in the deletion of additions and penalties across all related cases.