2017 (3) TMI 1236 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credits addition u/s.68 - Held that - There is no dispute that the CIT(A) has granted said part relief to assessee wherein it was found to have executed sale deeds with his customers later on after including the advance amount as part of the sale consideration money. There is further no quarrel that the assessee has also placed on record all of their particulars including PAN numbers which have nowhere been disputed. Nor the Assessing Officer conducted detailed inquiries by issuing them necessary notices under the provisions of the Act on test check basis. We repeat that we are dealing with an issue of unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act wherein an assessee suppose to discharge its primary onus of proving source along with identity, genuineness and creditworthiness thereof. We thus conclude in Revenue s appeal that the assessee has discharged its onus successfully in course of remand and lower appellate proceedings Delete the remaining addition as confirmed in the lower appellate proceedings - Held that - We find that it has filed a petition on 07.01.2017 before this tribunal alongwith details of 483 customers pertaining to the advances received of ₹ 2.52crores. It submits therein that it has obtained PAN numbers of 182 customers involving advances amount of ₹ 1.02 crores. Total 75 customers are stated to be the cases therein amount is refunded due to cancellation plot registration. This is followed by 21 members whose sale deeds have been executed on 31.03.2016 leaving behind balance amount of advances received from 205 customers involving ₹ 96,60,823/-. Learned Departmental Representative objects to this petition. He strongly submits that the same is in the nature of additional evidence wherein an Assessing Officer has to be granted opportunity to rebut the facts sought to be brought on record. We appreciate learned Departmental Representative s concerned. The fact also remains that all these developments in this petition are post facto institution of the instant appeal as filed in the year 2012. We therefore take these additional documents on record and remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for conducting necessary verification as per law. We further deem it appropriate to confirm the remaining addition amount of ₹ 96,60,823/- wherein the assessee has not been able to rebut Assessing Officer s findings as affirmed in lower appellate order under challenge unlike in other cases wherein it has procured additional details even after a time span of almost five years after the CIT(A) s order. This assessee s ground is thus partly accepted for statistical purposes. Addition pertaining to amounts received as booking cancellation and the latter sum of ₹ 1,01,000/- as pre-operative cheque return charges - Held that -Learned Authorized Representative strongly argues that the assessee ought to have been allowed to treat the above incomes as work-in-progress instead of business income. He however fails to dispute that there exists a direct first degree nexus between assessee s business of real estate development and these two incomes wherein it has firstly charged for plot booking cancellations and also derived latter income in lieu of cheque cancellation charges from its customers. We thus find no reason to interfere in the CIT(A) s order confirming Assessing Officer s action on both counts. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Income from other sources arising from interest on surplus funds.
3. Treatment of booking cancellation amounts and pre-operative cheque return charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:

The primary issue revolves around the addition of ?11,24,25,551/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, a real estate developer, credited advances from 2129 customers, with a remaining balance of ?11,24,25,551/- after returns. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this amount as unexplained cash credits due to the lack of PAN details and confirmations of the parties involved.

The CIT(A) partially reversed the addition, providing relief of ?8,45,91,627/- and confirming ?2,78,33,924/-. The CIT(A) divided the advances into three categories:
- Advances from persons with executed sale deeds.
- Advances from persons with and without PAN.
- Advances from canceled bookings.

For the first category, advances of ?2,19,55,992/- were not taxed under Section 68 as they were declared as income in subsequent years. For the second category, the CIT(A) deleted ?5,97,64,110/- where PAN details were provided and confirmed ?2,52,01,648/- where PAN details were missing. For the third category, the CIT(A) deleted ?6,56,951/- for advances with PAN and ?22,14,301/- for refunded advances, confirming ?26,32,549/- where PAN details were missing.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the credits. However, the Tribunal remitted the issue of ?2,78,33,924/- back to the AO for verification, especially concerning the advances of ?2.52 crores from 483 customers, with new evidence provided post-appeal.

2. Income from Other Sources Arising from Interest on Surplus Funds:

The assessee contested the addition of ?13,31,870/- as income from other sources derived from bank deposits. The AO and CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim to reduce this amount from the project cost, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present evidence of the direct nexus between surplus funds and business activity.

3. Treatment of Booking Cancellation Amounts and Pre-Operative Cheque Return Charges:

The assessee challenged the additions of ?2,45,412/- for booking cancellation amounts and ?1,01,000/- for pre-operative cheque return charges, arguing these should reduce work-in-progress rather than be treated as business income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the direct nexus between these incomes and the assessee's business activities, thus confirming their treatment as business income.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, remitting specific issues back to the AO for further verification, and dismissed the Revenue's cross-appeal. The decision underscores the importance of providing adequate documentation to substantiate claims under Section 68 and the treatment of income from other sources.