2020 (6) TMI 339 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenditure incurred stating it to be expenditure incurred for persons expenses - AO has disallowed 20% of the claim of conveyance expenditure because no proper explanation was submitted by the assessee - HELD THAT - There was scope for conveyance expenditure being incurred for personal purposes which is embedded in the total claim of conveyance expenditure. The assessee had also not furnished proper explanation before the Ld. CIT (A) therefore he confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. In this situation, we do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR - disallowance of ₹ 20% of the total claim of conveyance expenses would be on the higher side and accordingly sustaining the disallowance of conveyance expenditure at 15% of the total claim of conveyance expenditure Addition on the ground of undisclosed rental income received by the assessee from NTPC - HELD THAT - AO observed from the AIR data that the assessee had received rental income from NTPC. However, on perusing the return of income it was revealed that the assessee has not disclosed the same. The assessee also failed to furnish details as regards to the rental income earned by him from NTPC. Hence, the Ld. AO added the undisclosed rental receipt to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT (A) in his order has mentioned that the assessee admitted for having failed to disclose the rental income received from NTPC in his return of income. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Before us also neither the assessee nor the Ld. AR could produce any details for deleting the addition. In this situation, we do not have any other alternative but to confirm the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities on the issue. Accordingly, this ground is decided against the assessee. Addition of business receipt not disclosed in the return of income - HELD THAT - AR could not produce any material to justify the discrepancy observed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities. However, considering the nature of business conducted by the assessee, and the expenditure the assessee would have incurred for earning such income, an estimate of 15% of the undisclosed business reciepts would suffice to meet the ends of the justice for both parties. Accordingly, we hereby direct the Ld. AO to sustain the addition Addition being the amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee by holding that the source is not explained - HELD THAT - Assessee has disclosed total income of ₹ 3,39,490/- in his return of income for relevant assessment year and the addition sustained by us for ₹ 2,80,000/- towards undisclosed receipts for which telescoping effect has to be given and the accumulated earnings of the assessee, I am of the view that an addition of ₹ 6 lakhs would suffice to explain the source for the bank deposit of ₹ 12 lakhs. Accordingly, hereby sustain the addition of ₹ 6 lakhs on this count. It is ordered accordingly. Interest U/s. 234A 234B - HELD THAT - Levy of interest U/s. 234A and 234B of the Act is consequential in nature and accordingly the ground does not survive.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee.
2. Addition of undisclosed rental income received by the assessee.
3. Addition of undisclosed business receipts by the assessee.
4. Addition of cash deposited in the bank account by the assessee.
5. Levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act.

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee

The assessee claimed certain expenditure for which the Ld. AO disallowed a portion as personal expenses. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld this decision. The Ld. AR argued that the disallowance was erroneous as the expenditure was for business purposes. The tribunal found that while the disallowance was on the higher side, there was a possibility of personal expenditure included. The tribunal sustained a disallowance of 15% of the total claim, amounting to approximately ?14,000.

Issue 2: Addition of undisclosed rental income received by the assessee

The Ld. AO observed undisclosed rental income received by the assessee, which the assessee admitted to not disclosing. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed this addition as the assessee failed to provide any details to support deletion. The tribunal, finding no justification for deletion, upheld the decision of the revenue authorities to add the undisclosed rental income of ?75,000 to the assessee's income.

Issue 3: Addition of undisclosed business receipts by the assessee

The Ld. AO noted a significant discrepancy between the income declared by the assessee and the income received from various parties. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition of undisclosed business receipts as the assessee failed to justify the difference. The tribunal estimated 15% of the undisclosed business receipts, amounting to ?2,85,000, as a fair addition considering the nature of the business and expenses incurred.

Issue 4: Addition of cash deposited in the bank account by the assessee

The Ld. AO observed a cash deposit of ?12 lakhs in the assessee's bank account without a clear source of income explained. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld this addition as the assessee failed to provide any details to explain the source of the deposit. The tribunal, after considering the total income declared by the assessee and other factors, sustained an addition of ?6 lakhs to explain the source of the bank deposit.

Issue 5: Levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act

The tribunal noted that the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act is consequential and does not require further adjudication. Therefore, this issue was not considered as it was deemed to be in line with statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee after thorough examination of each issue and considering the relevant facts and explanations provided during the proceedings.