2018 (6) TMI 1386 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed investment in equipment U/s 69 - e-mail communications dated 5.12.2011 and 11.12.2011 which has formed the basis of addition in the hands of the assessee company towards the cost of equipment - lack of enquiry - Held that - We find that there is nothing on record in terms of any enquiry/ investigation which has been carried by the Assessing officer either during the assessment proceedings or even during the remand proceeding. The Assessing officer has not brought on record any credible verifiable evidence in terms of assessee company having incurred expenditure on purchase of equipments and grant of license over and above what has been stated in the books of accounts or the value of equipment and the cost of obtaining the license if so procured at the relevant point in time is higher than what has been stated in the books of accounts. Further, there is nothing on record which suggests these alleged investments have been made during the year under consideration. CIT(A) has also returned a finding that the channel has gone on air in the financial year 20010-11 pertaining to assessment year 2011- 12 and if any addition has to be made on account of unexplained investment, it has to be in A.Y. 2011-12 and not in the impugned assessment year. In light of the above discussions, we do not see any infirmity in the finding and order of the ld. CIT(A). - decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of undisclosed investment in equipment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of unexplained expenditure for license fee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of undisclosed investment in equipment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The AO made additions of ?1,74,68,288 on account of undisclosed investment in equipment and ?1,77,70,520 on account of unexplained expenditure for license fee. The basis of these additions was an e-mail communication related to the assessee company's cost of equipment and license fee, which differed from the figures in the balance sheet. The ld. CIT(A) deleted these additions after considering the factual matrix, case laws, and the assessee's submissions. It was noted that the channel had gone on air in FY 2010-11, pertaining to AY 2011-12, and any additions should have been made in that assessment year, not in AY 2013-14. The AO did not conduct any investigation or bring forth evidence to support the additions for the current assessment year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Addition of unexplained expenditure for license fee
The Tribunal found that the e-mail communication forming the basis of the AO's additions was not sufficient on its own to justify the additions in the hands of the assessee company. There was a lack of credible evidence or investigation by the AO to prove the actual investment made by the company. The balance sheet seized during the search operation showed different figures for equipment and license fee, but without further verification, these figures could not be relied upon for making additions. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that if any addition was warranted, it should have been made in AY 2011-12 when the channel went on air. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment in equipment and unexplained expenditure for license fee for AY 2013-14. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of conducting proper investigations and providing credible evidence before making such additions to an assessee's income.