2019 (12) TMI 1199 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained excess cash found during the course of survey - survey u/s 133A - HELD THAT - Tribunal had categorically directed the A.O. to make verification of the claim of the assessee but instead of making the claim of the assessee, the A.O. yet again made additions, which have been challenged by the assessee in ground Nos.1 to 7. All the grounds are being disposed together for the sake of convenience and brevity. In respect of cash on hand of ₹ 2,50,000/- the explanation of the assessee is that there was some cash on hand. This submission was made before the A.O. by the assessee. However, the A.O. did not verify the contention of the assessee. As per the assessee, there was repayment by the debtors of ₹ 1,62,524/- opening cash balance was ₹ 36,389/- interest received on amount received from debtors of ₹ 40,000/- sale of opening stock of ₹ 35,800/- proceed of sale of stock of ₹ 2,000/-. All these aspects ought to have been verified by the A.O. Even the Ld. CIT did not call for any remand report from the A.O. regarding these submissions.Therefore, under these facts and circumstances cannot sustain the additions made by the A.O. and the A.O. is directed to delete the additions - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?2,50,000/- as unexplained excess cash.
2. Addition of ?1,00,000/- as unexplained investment in agricultural land.
3. Addition of ?1,50,000/- as unexplained investment in agricultural produce.
4. Addition of ?1,50,000/- as unexplained investment in advances.
5. Addition of ?18,000/- as deemed income on advances.
6. Addition of ?50,000/- as low household expenses.
7. Addition of ?5,500/- as profit on sale of stock.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?2,50,000/- as Unexplained Excess Cash:
The assessee contended that the cash balance was explained through recovery from Hundis, interest received, and opening cash balance. The AO did not verify these claims, and the CIT(A) also failed to call for a remand report. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, stating that all these aspects should have been verified.

2. Addition of ?1,00,000/- as Unexplained Investment in Agricultural Land:
The assessee explained that the agricultural land was purchased in earlier years (1993 and 1998) and not in the assessment year under consideration. The AO made the addition based on the survey declaration without verifying the facts. The Tribunal found the addition unsustainable and directed its deletion.

3. Addition of ?1,50,000/- as Unexplained Investment in Agricultural Produce:
The assessee claimed that the agricultural produce was from his HUF's agricultural activities, which holds 10 hectares of land. The AO did not verify this claim and made the addition based on the survey declaration. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this addition, emphasizing the need for verification.

4. Addition of ?1,50,000/- as Unexplained Investment in Advances:
The promissory notes found during the survey were from earlier years (1996 to 1998). The AO added the amount without considering that these advances were made in earlier years. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this addition, noting that the AO failed to verify the facts.

5. Addition of ?18,000/- as Deemed Income on Advances:
The AO calculated interest on loans of ?1,50,000/- outstanding as on 31.3.2004, despite the assessee declaring interest of ?40,000/-. The Tribunal found this addition unsustainable and directed its deletion.

6. Addition of ?50,000/- as Low Household Expenses:
The AO added ?50,000/- for low household expenses without considering the assessee's explanation that he lived in a small village with low living costs. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this addition.

7. Addition of ?5,500/- as Profit on Sale of Stock:
The assessee claimed that the agricultural produce was from his own agricultural activities. The AO made the addition without verifying this claim. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this addition.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed both appeals, directing the AO to delete all the additions made. The Tribunal emphasized the need for verification of the assessee's claims, which the AO and CIT(A) failed to perform. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 19.12.2019.

← Previous Next →