2020 (4) TMI 292 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 14A read with rule 8D - notional disallowance of expenditure incurred for earning of tax exempt income - HELD THAT - Expenditure claimed by the assessee in the computation of income is the audit fee, legal fee, bank charges etc. which cannot be said to be related to investment activity of the assessee. Further, the assessee has not made any investment during the assessment year under consideration. All the investments were old investments. No interest expenditure has been claimed by the assessee. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the same is hereby upheld. Addition u/s 68 - assessee had failed to prove the creditworthiness of the persons from whom he allegedly received the aforesaid credits - HELD THAT - Amounts were received through banking channel. Some transactions undertaken by the assessee with other parties have been accepted by the Assessing Officer and that there was no cash deposits by the said parties in the bank accounts. That even the concerned creditors have also explained their sources of the aforesaid funds. That even out of the aforesaid three parties, the advance received from Shri Inderjeet Singh and Shri Charanpreet Singh have been refunded as due to some dispute, the sale deed could not be executed. So far as advance from Shree Radhey Terra Private Limited was concerned, the company has explained that the amount was paid out of the funds available with the company as advance against the purchase of the property. Further, that the requisite details of the company alongwith their PAN numbers, Income-tax returns, bank statements etc. were filed. Further, that the amount was still outstanding due to dispute with the party. Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land - assessee claimed the same to be rural land situated beyond 8 KMs from the Municipal limit, hence, not falling under the capital assets exigible to Long Term Capital Gains - HELD THAT - As noted that on the similar issue in the assessment year 2011-12, the additions were deleted by him while replying upon the report of the certificate of the Naib Tehsildar (Land Revenue Officer) certifying the fact that the subject land was situated beyond 8KMs of the Municipal Limit - as observed that in his report, the Inspector did not mentioned any Khasra number, however, in the report of the Tehsildar, Khasra numbers of the land were mentioned and certificate was given as per the exact details. He observed that the report of the Naib Tehsildar was based on record and, hence, was much authentic, whereas, the report of the inspector was prepared on estimation basis. He, accordingly relying upon the certificate of the Naib Tehsildar held that the land was agricultural rural land not falling in the definition of the capital assets for the purpose of levy of capital gains tax - no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue also.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act
2. Addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act
3. Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act
The Revenue contested the deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act regarding expenditure for earning tax-exempt income. The Assessing Officer calculated the disallowance at 0.5% of total investment. However, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance as the assessee did not claim any expenditure related to investment activity. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the claimed expenses were not related to investment activity, and since no interest expenditure was claimed, no disallowance was warranted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the claimed expenses were not investment-related, no new investments were made, and no interest expenditure was claimed.

Issue 2: Addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding credits received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer added the amount to the income due to lack of proof of creditworthiness of the creditors. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing confirmations and information provided by the creditors. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that confirmations and balance sheets were provided, and the onus was discharged by the assessee.

Issue 3: Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land
The Revenue disputed the deletion of an addition on account of Long Term Capital Gains on the sale of land. The Assessing Officer considered the land as not rural based on an inspector's report. However, the CIT(A) relied on a certificate from the Naib Tehsildar certifying the land as rural. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the authenticity of the Tehsildar's certificate over the inspector's report.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it found no merit in the challenges raised on all three issues.