2017 (6) TMI 584 - AT - Income Tax

Addition invoking the provisions of Sec.69 or 69A - revenue has contended that the security deposit in question ought to have been shown in the asset side of the Balance sheet - Held that - In both the aforesaid provisions, the requirement is that the investments or unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article should not have been found recorded in the books of accounts of the Assessee. From the explanation given by the Assessee, which has not been shown to be incorrect by the Revenue, it is clear that the security deposit with M/S.Future Plus Enterprise Pvt.Ltd., is duly reflected in the books of accounts of the Assessee. As we have already seen this has been taken into account by reduction in the liability side of the Balance Sheet and therefore the effect is one and the same. As we have already stated the addition can be made only when the investment is not recorded in the books of accounts. Since the investment is found to be recorded in the books of accounts, I am of the view that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and hold that the addition was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Whether the trade deposit of a specific amount was disclosed in the balance sheet as an asset by the assessee.
2. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) invoking the provisions of Sec.69 or 69A of the Income Tax Act was justified.
3. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO.

Issue 1: Disclosure of Trade Deposit:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) relating to the assessment year 2012-13. The dispute centered around the disclosure of a trade deposit of ?43,74,312 by the assessee in the balance sheet as an asset. The assessee explained that the deposit was made to a company as part of a trade agreement for purchasing lottery tickets. The deposit was shown as a liability in the balance sheet, offset against amounts collected from sub-stockists. The AO added the deposit as undisclosed income, which the CIT(A) later deleted after considering the detailed submissions and supporting documents provided by the assessee.

Issue 2: Addition by AO under Sec.69 or 69A:
The AO had added the trade deposit amount as undisclosed income under Sec.69 or 69A of the Act, alleging that it was not properly accounted for by the assessee. However, the CIT(A) found that the deposit was indeed reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee as a liability, contrary to the AO's assertion. The CIT(A) emphasized that for such additions to be justified under Sec.69 or 69A, the investment or money should not be recorded in the books of accounts. Since the deposit was duly recorded in the balance sheet, the addition made by the AO was deemed unwarranted and was consequently deleted.

Issue 3: Deletion of Addition by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) supported the assessee's contentions by noting that the trade deposit was part of the normal course of the lottery business, where such deposits were made to safeguard the interests of parties involved. The CIT(A) thoroughly examined the details provided by the assessee, including balance sheet entries and supporting confirmations, and concluded that the deposit was appropriately accounted for as a liability. The CIT(A) found no fault in the assessee's explanation and therefore deleted the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that since the deposit was recorded in the books of accounts, there was no basis for the addition under Sec.69 or 69A, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the proper disclosure and accounting treatment of a trade deposit by the assessee, with the Tribunal ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee based on the meticulous examination of the balance sheet entries and supporting documentation, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the AO.

← Previous Next →