2017 (3) TMI 743 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in excess stock - statement recorded u/Sec.133-A - Held that - AO has not allowed the cost of construction of ₹ 2,45,000/- as per the revised return filed by the assessee on 14.07.2012 stating that no bills/vouchers for purchase of material for construction purposes were submitted. However it is evident from the purchase deed that constructed area at the time of purchase on 27.03.2003 was 146.31 Sq.Mtrs. Consisting of five rooms, kitchen, garage, store, bathroom and toilet. However as per the sale deed dated 23.02.2011, the old construction was demolished and RCC pillars were constructed over 900 Sq.Ft. As per the decision of collector of stamps, the construction has been valued at ₹ 12,66,056/- as on 27.03.2012 while determining the value for stamp valuation. Also the assessee has submitted the individual balance sheet as on 30.03.2010 wherein the construction for ₹ 2,45,855/- (for indexed cost of improvement of ₹ 2,76,587/-) has been shown. In view of above facts, apparently the assessee has demolished the original construction and made the new construction thereon as per the facts stated above. Accordingly the addition made by the AO to be deleted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained investment in excess stock.
2. Disallowance of cost of construction.
3. Evidentiary value of statements recorded under Sec.133-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. Addition of unexplained investment in excess stock:
The case involved a dispute regarding the addition of ?44,05,090 for unexplained investment in excess stock for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer had made the addition based on evidence found during a survey of the premises. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined the matter and noted discrepancies in the construction details provided by the assessee. However, after considering various submissions and evidence, the Commissioner deleted the addition. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's well-reasoned decision, confirming the deletion of the addition.

2. Disallowance of cost of construction:
Another issue in the case was the disallowance of the cost of construction amounting to ?2,45,000 by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reviewed the facts and found that the assessee had demolished the original construction and made new construction, based on the evidence provided. The Commissioner observed discrepancies in the AO's decision and the evidence presented, leading to the deletion of the disallowance. The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the factual matrix and the well-reasoned decision made by the Commissioner. The Tribunal concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

3. Evidentiary value of statements recorded under Sec.133-A:
The appellant raised a contention regarding the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Sec.133-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that such statements had no evidentiary value, citing a distinction between statements recorded under Sec.132(4) and Sec.133-A. The appellant referred to a Supreme Court judgment to support the argument. However, the Court noted that sufficient evidence had been scrutinized by the authorities based on the statements recorded under Sec.133-A. The Court emphasized that the decision to uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer, confirmed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, was based on a detailed review of the evidence. The Court found no substantial question of law to be examined in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the case.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law emerged for consideration based on the factual matrix and concurrent findings of the authorities. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and the reasoning behind the decisions made by the lower authorities in resolving the issues raised by the appellant.