2010 (2) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Allowance of expenditure when no business activity during the relevant period sale of property to the tenant at lower rate addition u/s 68, cash credit - Held that - that the Assessee carried on business during the Assessment Year 2003-04 as the Assessee did a computer programming job for Fortis Financial Services for which payment had also been received by the Assessee. It had also rendered financial consultancy services by arranging a loan from CitiCorp for Oscar Investment Ltd and had received commission. Therefore expenditures are allowed - that the Assessee could not evict the tenant and as such the Assessee decided to sell the structure to the tenant himself Addition made by AO at ₹ 5,00,000 is deleted and the sum of ₹ 6,000/- indicated by the Assessee as being the sale price of the said shop was acceptable - there was no question of the genuineness of the cash credit and the only point raised by the Revenue was that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has admitted additional evidence introduced by the Assessee at the stage of the appeal additions deleted by the CIT(A) and ITAT confirmed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of business activities during the relevant period.
2. Addition on account of sale of a shop.
3. Unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the Assessment Year 2003-04. The Tribunal had initially disallowed a certain amount due to the lack of business activities by the assessee. However, it was found that the assessee had indeed conducted business activities during the assessment year, including computer programming and financial consultancy services. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance was unjustified and upheld the deletion of the amount by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

2. Another addition made by the Assessing Officer was related to the sale of a shop by the assessee. Although the sale deed for the shop was not produced, the Tribunal considered similar sale deeds from the past and accepted the sale price indicated by the assessee. The Tribunal found no evidence of additional amounts received by the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

3. The third addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was on account of an unexplained cash credit. This addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the cash credit was not in question, and the only concern raised by the Revenue was the admission of additional evidence by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Referring to Rule 46A, the Tribunal concluded that there was no interference required as the genuineness of the cash credit was established and the Assessing Officer had the opportunity to examine the additional evidence.

In the final judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the Tribunal's findings on all three issues. No substantial question of law was identified, and no perversity in the Tribunal's findings was highlighted by the Revenue's counsel. The decision was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Mridul on February 9, 2010.