2013 (10) TMI 1516 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
2. Deletion of addition on account of unaccounted investment u/s. 69B (Land at Naroda) of Rs. 29,00,000/-.
3. Deletion of addition on account of unaccounted investment u/s. 69B (Land at Chandkheda) of Rs. 30,50,000/-.

Summary:

1. Unexplained Cash of Rs. 1,00,000/-:
The A.O. observed that during a search and seizure operation, cash of Rs. 1,18,250/- was found in the assessee's residence, out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- was seized. The assessee claimed this cash belonged to disclosed sources of income. The A.O. was not satisfied, citing a disclosure of Rs. 92.26 lacs as unaccounted income by the group, including Rs. 12.5 lacs of undisclosed cash. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the total cash found was less than the cash as per the books of different entities of the group. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

2. Unaccounted Investment u/s. 69B (Land at Naroda) of Rs. 29,00,000/-:
The A.O. found a loose paper during the search indicating a cash payment of Rs. 29 lacs for land at Naroda. The assessee admitted the cash payment but claimed it was already reflected in the accounts. The A.O. was not convinced and added Rs. 29 lacs as unaccounted investment. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating there was no evidence of any further cash payment beyond what was already disclosed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of conclusive evidence and necessary inquiry by the A.O., thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

3. Unaccounted Investment u/s. 69B (Land at Chandkheda) of Rs. 30,50,000/-:
The A.O. found documents indicating a land purchase agreement and cash payments totaling Rs. 30.50 lacs. The assessee claimed the agreement was canceled and the payment was disclosed in the partnership firm's income. The A.O. added Rs. 30.50 lacs as unaccounted income, doubting the disclosure. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the payment was part of the firm's disclosed income and the deduction u/s. 80-IB was already disallowed in the firm's case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, clarifying that any action should be taken for A.Y. 06-07, not A.Y. 07-08, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions of the additions made by the A.O.