9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1342 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - assessee has made investments yielding exempt income and hence section 14A read with Rule 8D requires disallowance - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has made a detailed discussion of the entire gamut of issue by considering factual and legal aspects and came to conclude that the disallowance u/s 14A / Rule 8D was not warranted in the present case. Clearly, therefore, there is no infirmity in the findings made by Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Revenue has not rebutted the findings by placing any contrary material on record. Unaccounted interest payment on cash-loans - addition made as during the course of search, the authorities seized a laptop from the premise of assessee wherein a company named XYZ 08092 was found in tally-data and also seized loose papers marked as LPS-1 to 8 from the premises of Shri G.C. Patidar, an employee of assessee - HELD THAT - The laptop is seized from the office of assessee. Hence by virtue of section 292C, the laptop is presumed to be owned by assessee. Although the assessee claimed that the laptop belonged to Shri Nilesh Tawtech who had expired on 21.12.2010, it was for the assessee to bring some evidence to rebut the presumption of section 292C which had not been done. If the laptop belonged to Shri Nilesh Tawtech, how could it be retained by assessee till the date of search on 27.08.2014 and not handed over to the heirs of Shri Nilesh Tawtech? Laptop was containing Tally-data in the name of XYZ 0809 2 company. On verification of tally-data, the authorities have found that it contained accounted-transactions of assessee besides unaccounted transactions. Ld. AO is, therefore, correct in concluding that the tally data, which contained the accounted-data of assessee as well, certainly belonged to the assessee. AO has analysed the nature of transactions found in tally-data; corroborated the same with the loose-papers found at the premise of Shri G.C. Patidar, another employee of assessee. To illustrate, the Ld. AO has mentioned working of interest-calculations in Point No. 6/Page No. 80 of the assessment-order. The loose-papers seized from Shri G.C. Patidar are also natural documents, for example the excel-sheeof the assessment-order clearly reveals, the original cash-transactions done by assessee, subsequent modifications done therein, the names of parties, dates, amounts; captions such as paid PAID to be returned etc. which are not fictional entries. On Page No. 84 of the assessment-order, the Ld. AO has also made a corroboration of the data recorded in tally-system with the papers seized from Shri G.C. Patidar. AO has stated that the BS-4 seized by authorities contained a diary which shows a social relationship of assessee with the lenders. But, however, Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the AO s finding by saying that the names of those persons do not match with the names of lenders. The observation, whether the names of persons matched or not and hence the assessee had social relationship with those persons or not, is at the best an ancillary point only and cannot be taken as a tool to dislodge the cash-loans taken by assessee, which are very much recorded in the tally-data / loose-papers seized.On going through these statements, we observe that Shri G.C. Patidar has not only admitted the cash-loans taken by assessee but also explained the modus operandi adopted in that regard. These statements, which are recorded during the proceeding of section 132(4) have an evidentiary value and cannot be taken lightly. Thus there is a clear admission by Shri G.C. Patidar of three vital points, viz (i) he made loose papers; (ii) the loose papers were under the instructions of Shri Puneet Agarwal (Shri Puneet Agarwal was director of assessee-company); and (iii) those loose papers were entered by Shri Nilesh Tavrech in the tally-data in laptop. AO has rightly concluded that the assessee has taken cash-loans from various lenders and paid interest thereon from undisclosed sources. Being so, we reverse the action of Ld. CIT(A) and uphold the addition made by Ld. AO. Decided against assessee. Unaccounted interest payment on cash-loans - seized document which is the basis of making addition seized from third party - HELD THAT - We agree with the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) that the impugned seized document which is the basis of making addition in the hands of assessee, was in fact seized from the premise of AIDPL and not from assessee, hence no presumption u/s 292C can be drawn against assessee; (ii) no addition can be made on the assessee u/s 153A on the basis of document found during search conducted upon someone else, particularly because the AY 2009-10 under consideration is a non-abated assessment-year; and (iii) the Ld. AO has not provided any opportunity of cross-examination of AIDPL to the assessee before relying upon the document found in possession of AIDPL. Thus, keeping in view these serious infirmities, the Ld. AO is not justified in using the impugned document against assessee. Bogus payment to petrol pumps - authorities seized certain excel sheets from DGM of assessee, which contained details of unaccounted cash-receipts by the assessee from certain petrol pumps - HELD THAT - We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the addition was warranted to the extent of unaccounted cash-receipt only. We further observe that the excel-sheet reproduced by Ld. AO in assessment-order demonstrates that there was no cash-receipt at least during the previous year 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011- 12 under consideration. Being so, the Ld. CIT(A) is very much correct in concluding that no addition was warranted in AY 2011-12. We countenance the conclusion taken by Ld. CIT(A) whereby he has deleted the addition.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 2. Addition of unaccounted interest payment on cash loans. 3. Addition of unaccounted investment. 4. Addition of bogus payment to petrol pumps. 5. Disallowance of sub-contract expenses. 6. Treatment of documentary evidence as dumb documents. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: - IT(SS)A No. 32/Ind/2021, 33/Ind/2021, and 34/Ind/2021: - The Assessing Officer (AO) made disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for AY 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, citing that the assessee made investments yielding exempt income. - The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted these disallowances, referencing prior ITAT decisions that ruled in favor of the assessee. - The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting no contrary material was provided by the Revenue to rebut the findings. 2. Addition of Unaccounted Interest Payment on Cash Loans: - IT(SS)A No. 32/Ind/2021 (AY 2009-10): - The AO added Rs. 82,03,684 based on seized data from a laptop and loose papers, alleging cash loans and unaccounted interest payments. - The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing lack of corroborative evidence and the retraction of statements by the employee involved. - The ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, reinstating the AO's addition, emphasizing the evidentiary value of the seized data and statements. - IT(SS)A No. 33/Ind/2021 (AY 2010-11): - Similar addition of Rs. 58,55,122 was made by the AO. - The ITAT upheld the AO's addition, applying the same rationale as for AY 2009-10. 3. Addition of Unaccounted Investment: - IT(SS)A No. 32/Ind/2021 (AY 2009-10) and IT(SS)A No. 33/Ind/2021 (AY 2010-11): - The AO made additions of Rs. 5,52,49,940 and Rs. 5,37,00,603 respectively, treating cash loans to directors as unaccounted investments. - The ITAT dismissed these grounds, noting they originated from a rectification order dated 30.07.2019, which was not part of the current appeal. 4. Addition of Bogus Payment to Petrol Pumps: - IT(SS)A No. 34/Ind/2021 (AY 2011-12): - The AO added Rs. 1,29,09,512 based on seized excel sheets indicating bogus payments and cash receipts from petrol pumps. - The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the AO should have added only the cash receipts, which were not evident for AY 2011-12. - The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing no addition was warranted in AY 2011-12. 5. Disallowance of Sub-Contract Expenses: - IT(SS)A No. 34/Ind/2021 (AY 2011-12): - The AO disallowed Rs. 38,77,55,100 for sub-contract payments to M/s Geet Exim Pvt. Ltd., following a revisionary order. - The CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 35,67,34,692, confirming only 8% of the expenses as taxable. - The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's grounds, noting the revisionary order was quashed, rendering the newer assessment order non-est. 6. Treatment of Documentary Evidence as Dumb Documents: - IT(SS)A No. 32/Ind/2021 (AY 2009-10) and IT(SS)A No. 33/Ind/2021 (AY 2010-11): - The Revenue argued the CIT(A) erred in treating documentary evidence as dumb documents. - The ITAT noted these grounds were covered by other adjudicated issues and did not require separate adjudication. Conclusion: - The ITAT partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, reinstating certain additions for unaccounted interest payments. - Additions for unaccounted investments were dismissed due to procedural issues. - The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletions for bogus payments to petrol pumps and disallowance of sub-contract expenses, noting procedural and evidentiary deficiencies. - All cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed.
|
