9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 618 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69A - Undisclosed investment in cash deposits and transfer of cheque - unexplained investment - additional evidences submitted under the Rule 46A of the ITAT Rules - HELD THAT - Addition made by the AO on various counts and during the appellate proceedings these documents were being placed before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) called for remand report, since additional documents were being placed by invoking Rule 46A. As it can be seen from the remand report and rebuttal filed by the assessee, the factum of the transactions were clearly brought on for each addition with documentary evidences, and also the three immovable properties stated to have been purchased by the assessee only in his capacity as partner of the firm and the transactions were being shown as stock-in-trade in its balance sheet, which is also assessed to tax and scrutiny assessment has also been passed on 21.3.2014 in the case of the partnership firm M/s.Monarch Infra Venture. Considering the above facts, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO. During the course of hearing before us, the ld.DR could not able to produce any contrary view or evidence on the deletion made by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that deletion made by the CIT(A) does not require any interference and grounds raised by the Revenue are hereby rejected. Consequently, cross objection filed by the assessee being in support of the order of the ld.CIT(A), becomes infructuous, and disposed off accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing cross-objection by the assessee. 2. Addition of Rs. 2,48,75,684/- as unexplained investment under Section 69A. 3. Addition of Rs. 98,70,452/- as undisclosed investment in cash deposits and transfer by cheque. 4. Addition of Rs. 1,36,22,699/- as unexplained investment in land under Section 69. 5. Deletion of additions by CIT(A) and the Revenue's appeal against it. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing Cross-Objection by the Assessee: The assessee filed a cross-objection with a delay of 111 days, explaining that he was in the USA during the relevant period. The delay was condoned as the Revenue had no serious objection. 2. Addition of Rs. 2,48,75,684/- as Unexplained Investment under Section 69A: The AO made this addition due to unexplained cash deposits in HDFC Bank. However, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee provided evidence showing that the amount was received through banking channels and was related to the purchase of land on behalf of the partnership firm, Monarch Infra Venture. The AO, in his remand report, accepted the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing the AO's acceptance and various judicial precedents supporting the assessee's claim. 3. Addition of Rs. 98,70,452/- as Undisclosed Investment in Cash Deposits and Transfer by Cheque: The AO initially added this amount due to unexplained cash deposits in Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. During the remand proceedings, the AO accepted the genuineness of most transactions except for Rs. 1,60,000/- in cash deposits, which the assessee claimed were from personal savings. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the AO's acceptance and the assessee's explanations. 4. Addition of Rs. 1,36,22,699/- as Unexplained Investment in Land under Section 69: This addition was made due to the purchase of three immovable properties. The assessee provided evidence that the properties were purchased on behalf of the partnership firm, Monarch Infra Venture, and were reflected as 'stock-in-trade' in the firm's balance sheet. The AO, in his remand report, accepted the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the AO's acceptance and the documentary evidence provided. 5. Deletion of Additions by CIT(A) and the Revenue's Appeal Against It: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the genuineness of the transactions in his remand report and that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions based on the evidence provided. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee in support of the CIT(A)'s order was also disposed of as infructuous. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO, finding that the transactions were genuine and adequately explained. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was disposed of accordingly.
|
