2022 (9) TMI 1088 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194IA - Purchase of agricultural land - HELD THAT - In the present case, such land is situated beyond 6 km from the local limits of Panvel municipality, which has a population of more than 1 lakh but not exceeding 10 lakhs. Assessee has submitted the aerial distance of the land purchased showing that it is situated at a distance of more than 6 km aerially from limits of Panvel Municipality. A communication was also submitted from Panvel Nagar Parishad. Revenue failed to bring on record any evidence, which proves that the impugned land is not an agricultural land. Therefore, find that the impugned land is an agricultural land and no tax is required to be deducted on purchase of land under Section 194-IA of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (A) on this count and dismissed grounds no.1 to 5 of the appeal of the Revenue. Addition u/s 69C - unexplained expenditure with respect to Panvel project - CIT (A) noted that in the order of settlement commission the total expenditure was considered as an application of income against the disclosure made by the group before the settlement commission - HELD THAT - In the order of the settlement commission the capitalization was granted to the assessee about the only earned which has been utilized by incurring the expenditure of this company. The fact shows that Wadhwa group Holdings private limited has admitted to certain receipts in the nature of loans as belonging to it. Having so admitted the receipts, that applicant also owns up outgoing in the seized material is being spent by the applicant Wadhwa Group Holdings Pvt Ltd on various projects of different entities of the group which also included the assessee and same are not in the nature of any tangible asset. In the settlement commission the expenditure incurred with respect to the projects of the assessee was also considered for capitalization. The settlement commission allowed the same. Therefore, We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the above addition and therefore, ground of the appeal is dismissed. Unaccounted cash receipt - HELD THAT - As during the course of search it was found that Group was maintaining the record of unaccounted cash receipts and payments on a cloud based software i.e. HR Points. The entries were made in coded language. The data was analyzed and it was found that sum of ₹4 lacs is belonging to the appellant. The assessee has not undertaken sales of any of the project. AO found that out of that only 8% of such income has been offered as income, the balance ₹3,68,000/- were added in the hands of the assessee. As in the case of the assessee any expenditure incurred by the assessee were considered before settlement commission and there was no income offered on account of assessee, CIT (A) confirmed the same. We find that as there is no evidence given by the assessee with respect to any income, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of lower authorities in confirming the addition - Accordingly, the solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Disallowance under Section 14A - CIT (A) restricted Addition to the extent of exempt income earned - HELD THAT - No infirmity is pointed out in the order of the learned CIT (A). Based on several judicial precedents, CIT (A) has held that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (A) and dismiss the ground of the appeal. Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained cash credit - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Both the companies are registered with RBI as non-banking financial companies in the category of non-deposit taking systemically important companies - remand report clearly shown that these companies were enquired by the learned Assessing Officer and complete replies are submitted by them. AO on receipt of the reply did not have anything adverse to comment. It is also apparent that assessee has proved identity and creditworthiness of the depositor as well as the genuineness of the deposit of money in the form of debentures. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the addition under Section 68. Appeal of revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition towards undisclosed income.
2. Deduction of selling and administrative expenses.
3. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A.
4. Deletion of addition under Section 40(a)(ia) regarding agricultural land.
5. Deletion of addition under Section 69C for unaccounted cash expenditure.
6. Disallowance under Section 14A.
7. Addition under Section 68 for debenture subscriptions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition towards undisclosed income:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 3,68,000 towards undisclosed income, arguing that the income was offered on a percentage of receipt basis under the real income theory. However, the CIT (A) confirmed the addition, noting that the order of the settlement commission did not include the above sum. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, stating that there was no evidence provided by the assessee to counter the addition.

2. Deduction of selling and administrative expenses:
The assessee argued that the CIT (A) erred in not allowing the deduction of selling and administrative expenses as "Period Cost" allowable in the year of its incurrence. However, this issue was not specifically addressed in the detailed judgment provided.

3. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A:
The Revenue contended that the CIT (A) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A despite repeated opportunities given to the assessee by the AO. The ITAT noted that the CIT (A) had admitted additional evidence, including a letter from the Sub-Engineer and Google Maps, to establish that the land in question was agricultural. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the admission of additional evidence.

4. Deletion of addition under Section 40(a)(ia) regarding agricultural land:
The AO had disallowed Rs. 7,03,96,000 under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on the purchase of land, arguing it was not agricultural land. The CIT (A) deleted the disallowance, accepting the assessee's evidence that the land was agricultural and situated beyond 6 km from Panvel Municipality limits. The ITAT confirmed the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the land qualified as agricultural under Section 2(14)(iii)(b) and was thus exempt from TDS under Section 194-IA.

5. Deletion of addition under Section 69C for unaccounted cash expenditure:
The AO added Rs. 1,78,55,000 under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure based on seized digital evidence. The CIT (A) deleted the addition, referencing a settlement commission order that included the expenditure in the total disclosure made by the group. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the settlement commission had considered the expenditure for capitalization.

6. Disallowance under Section 14A:
For A.Y. 2014-15, the AO disallowed Rs. 21,08,798 under Section 14A, which the CIT (A) restricted to Rs. 65,197, the amount of exempt income earned. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, citing judicial precedents that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned.

7. Addition under Section 68 for debenture subscriptions:
The AO added Rs. 4 crores under Section 68, questioning the genuineness of debenture subscriptions from two companies. The CIT (A) deleted the addition after obtaining a remand report and verifying the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The ITAT confirmed the CIT (A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the transactions' legitimacy.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed all appeals from both the assessee and the Revenue, confirming the CIT (A)'s decisions on all contested issues. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantial evidence in tax matters and upheld the principles of natural justice in admitting additional evidence and verifying the genuineness of transactions.