2018 (9) TMI 1622 - AT - Income Tax

Addition as undisclosed income - submission on behalf of the assessee that the amounts that were paid in cash to the seller had already been disclosed in the return of income of the assessee and the addition is only on the surmises and junctures - Held that - On a careful perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we are of the considered opinion that except this presumption on part of the Assessing Officer that the assessee will have to make the balance sale consideration of ₹ 1.17 crores in cash, besides which the assessee should have entered into contracts similar nature to make an addition of ₹ 2.5 crores, absolutely there is nothing in the custody of the Assessing Officer to justify the same. As rightly observed by the Ld. CIT(A) the submission of the assessee that if, in a span of 7 months, the assessee earned a sum of ₹ 5.13 crores, it does not guarantee that he went on earning at similar proportions in the balance period also. The Assessing Officer is not sure where the assessee made payment of balance sale consideration or not. However, the submission of the Ld. AR is that subsequently on 17.01.2013, ultimately, the sale was cancelled by way of a cancellation deed and a copy of the cancellation date is placed on record. We find justification in the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no guarantee that the assessee paid the balance sale consideration out of the unexplained earnings during the remaining period of the year. No addition could be sustained on presumptions. We, therefore, find any amount of strength in the reasoning adopted Ld. CIT(A), and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. We accordingly dismiss this ground of appeal. Addition made on account of personal use - Held that - It is an admitted fact that the final accounts submitted before the Assessing Officer are accepted and the balance sheet shows the withdrawals by the assessee which are adequate for their expenses. Ld. CIT (A) held that in the absence of any specific discrepancy pointed out by the Ld. Assessing Officer no addition cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances involved in the case we are also of the same opinion. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect. - Revenue appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of undisclosed income based on property transactions.
2. Deletion of additions by CIT (A) and appeal by the Revenue.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of undisclosed income based on property transactions
The case involved the assessment year 2012-13 where the assessee was subjected to search and seizure operations. The Assessing Officer added a sum of &8377; 2.5 crores as undisclosed income, presuming that the assessee earned additional income from property transactions due to unexplained cash payments. The CIT (A) disagreed with this addition, highlighting that no evidence supported the assumption that the assessee would continue earning at the same rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing that no additions could be made based on presumptions and conjectures. It was noted that the Assessing Officer lacked concrete justification for the addition, as the balance sale consideration and additional income were based on mere assumptions without supporting evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that additions cannot be sustained on presumptions alone.

Issue 2: Deletion of additions by CIT (A) and appeal by the Revenue
The Revenue appealed against the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The first addition of &8377; 2.5 crores as undisclosed income was based on the assumption that the assessee earned unaccounted money from property transactions. However, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT (A) that such additions lacked a factual basis and were solely speculative. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision regarding the deletion of the addition made on account of personal use. It was noted that the final accounts submitted by the assessee were accepted, and withdrawals were deemed sufficient for expenses. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s findings on both aspects. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence and rejecting additions based on presumptions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s decisions to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence in tax assessments and rejecting additions based on mere assumptions and conjectures.