2019 (7) TMI 546 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investment - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT - As Revenue conceded before it that the addition had been made in the hands of the representative bank account holders to which the amount deposited would be made by the assessee in the capacity of mandate holders of the accounts. Whereas, another finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is that addition had been made by the AO by treating the amount deposited to the bank account owned by the brother of the assessee namely, Shri Samir Kumar as income of the assessee. None of the three questions proposed could be termed as the substantial questions of law. In our opinion, no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against order passed by Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2011-12.
2. Deletion of additions made by Assessing Officer.
3. Unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Unaccounted bank interest.

Analysis:

1. The Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue raised substantial questions of law regarding the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, including the addition of certain amounts and unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act.

2. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on treating the amount deposited to the bank account owned by the assessee's brother as income of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the amount in question was the maturity value of an insurance policy belonging to the brother of the assessee, and therefore, it could not be considered as unexplained income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition.

3. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Revenue had conceded that the addition was made in the hands of representative bank account holders, to which the amount deposited would be made by the assessee in the capacity of mandate holders of the accounts. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the addition was specifically made by the Assessing Officer by considering the amount deposited to the bank account owned by the brother of the assessee as income of the assessee.

4. After considering the arguments presented by the Revenue's counsel and reviewing the evidence on record, the High Court concluded that none of the proposed questions could be considered substantial questions of law. The Court held that the Tribunal did not commit any error, let alone an error of law, in its decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's order.