2017 (12) TMI 1706 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - undisclosed investment - Search u/s 132 was conducted at business cum residential premises of assessee - addition on the basis of a ledger, seized from the possession of Shri Manish Tambi whose premises were covered under search operation u/s 132 - as alleged assessee has not provided the reasonable explanation offered to him, the evidences produced before him about the nature and source of investment - HELD THAT - Issue in question is covered by the decision SHRI MANISH TAMBI VS. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 JAIPUR AND VICE-VERSA. 2014 (3) TMI 1148 - ITAT JAIPUR as held addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made only if any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee. A book means a collection of sheets of papers bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and papers used are kept collectively in one volume. A book which contains successive entries of items maybe a good memorandum book but until those entries are totaled or balanced or both as the case may be, there is no reckoning and no accounts. A book which merely contains entries of items of which no account is made at any time, is not a book of account in a commercial sense. Thus the addition made u/s 68 is not justified. Addition u/s 69B - Also peak determined by the A.O. is not correct, otherwise also, when once peak amount has been added then no separate addition is required. It seems that the A.O. has not properly prepared the list of debtors and creditors based on any logic. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition under the Provisions of Section 69B. This section relates to investment made by the assessee in the acquisition of bullion/jewellery or other valuable articles but it does not speak about any investment in debtors. Moreover, Section 69B also stipulates the position where the investment exceeds the amount shown in the books of account. Since the assessee does not maintain any books of account wherein the debtors and creditors are reflected , therefore, this addition has also been wrongly made and upheld u/s 69B - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against addition u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961

Analysis:
The assessee appealed against the addition of ?5,79,335 u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO made the addition based on a ledger seized from Shri Manish Tambi during a search operation u/s 132 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the AO's action was justifiable and based on the loose papers found from Shri Manish Tambi's premises, indicating undisclosed investments. The Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur's order in a similar case directed the AO to compute income based on brokerage income. The section 69 of the Act was discussed, highlighting the conditions for deeming investments as income, the burden of proof on the assessee, and the AO's discretion in accepting explanations. The AO found the assessee's explanation unsatisfactory, leading to the sustained addition. The ITAT Jaipur Bench's decision further clarified that only commission income should be assessed, not additional amounts like debtors exceeding creditors. The ITAT order led to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

The ITAT Jaipur Bench's decision in a similar case played a crucial role in this judgment. It emphasized that seized papers cannot be equated to books of account and clarified the criteria for additions under different sections of the Act. The ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on certain additions, highlighting the importance of maintaining proper books of account for accurate assessments. This decision provided a strong precedent for the current case, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal against the addition u/s 69 of the Act. The judgment underscored the significance of following legal provisions and maintaining transparent financial records to avoid unwarranted additions or assessments.