2022 (11) TMI 910 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit - conflicting claims made by the assessee on the ground that these are current liability and not advance for sale of property as claimed - HELD THAT - We deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate with evidence to his substantiate that the amount, which has been received as advance for sale of property, has in fact advance for the sale of property and the sale has been concluded in the subsequent year. The AO shall decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. Ground of appeal No.1 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Unexplained purchase of property - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the property was purchased in the name of the father of the assessee and the AO without bringing any further evidence on record made addition in the hands of the assessee which is not justified - HELD THAT - The relevant observation of the CIT(A) deleting the addition has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. No infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Since the property has been purchased by the father of the assessee Shri C.Sathyanarayana, a finding given by the ld.CIT(A) and not controverted by the revenue, therefore, in our opinion addition, if any, could have been made in the hands of Mr.C.Sathyanarayana and not in the hands of the assessee. DR also could not controvert the findings given by the ld.CIT(A) on this issue by bringing any material before us. In this view of the matter and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the ld.CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition - Accordingly, the same is upheld. The ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Amount received from the HUF with no supporting evidence - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the addition is not made on the basis of any seized material, but on the basis of the capital account furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings - HELD THAT - Order of the CIT(A) cannot be accepted on this legal issue that no addition can be made in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. However, the request of the ld.counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee in a position to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the AO regarding the source of the HUF from where the amount was received is accepted. We, therefore, deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by producing cogent evidence to his satisfaction. The AO shall decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Undisclosed Income - difference between the income originally returned and income returned in response notice u/s.153A - HELD THAT - We find before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed the details of the total income under various heads as per original return of income as well as income as per revised return based on which the ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the correct taxable amount and pass consequential order, since the AO in the computation has included certain income which is exempt from tax. The order of ld.CIT(A) giving direction to the AO has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. No infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. A perusal of the order shows that the ld.CIT(A) has only directed the AO to adopt the correct taxable amount and pass consequential order by considering the profit from the firm, which is exempt and which was included in the total income. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the revenue on this issue is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 24 lakhs as unexplained cash credit.
2. Addition of Rs. 5 lakhs as undisclosed interest income.
3. Validity of assessment under Section 153A in absence of seized material.
4. Addition of Rs. 18 lakhs as unexplained cash credit.
5. Addition of Rs. 11 lakhs as unexplained investment.
6. Addition of Rs. 2.5 crores as unexplained investment in property.
7. Addition of Rs. 3.75 lakhs as unexplained cash credit.
8. Addition of Rs. 4.07 lakhs due to difference in income declared in original and revised returns.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 24 Lakhs as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 24 lakhs to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit, citing the failure to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors. The CIT (A) upheld this addition. However, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing the assessee to produce evidence substantiating the creditworthiness of the creditors.

2. Addition of Rs. 5 Lakhs as Undisclosed Interest Income:
The AO added Rs. 5 lakhs as undisclosed interest income based on a diary entry. The CIT (A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal found that the amount was a loan, not interest income, and restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence.

3. Validity of Assessment under Section 153A in Absence of Seized Material:
The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment under Section 153A, arguing that the additions were not based on seized material. This ground was not pressed by the assessee during the hearing, and thus, it was dismissed.

4. Addition of Rs. 18 Lakhs as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The AO added Rs. 18 lakhs as unexplained cash credit, which the assessee claimed was received as an advance for the sale of property. The CIT (A) upheld the addition due to conflicting claims by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to substantiate the claim with evidence.

5. Addition of Rs. 11 Lakhs as Unexplained Investment:
The AO added Rs. 11 lakhs as unexplained investment based on an agreement found during the search. The CIT (A) did not adjudicate this ground. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT (A) for proper adjudication.

6. Addition of Rs. 2.5 Crores as Unexplained Investment in Property:
The AO added Rs. 2.5 crores as unexplained investment in property based on seized cheques and statements. The CIT (A) deleted the addition, noting that the property was purchased by the assessee's father, not the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order.

7. Addition of Rs. 3.75 Lakhs as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The AO added Rs. 3.75 lakhs as unexplained cash credit, which the assessee claimed was received from an HUF. The CIT (A) deleted the addition, stating it was not based on seized material. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing the assessee to provide evidence substantiating the source of the HUF.

8. Addition of Rs. 4.07 Lakhs Due to Difference in Income Declared:
The AO added Rs. 4.07 lakhs due to a difference in income declared in the original and revised returns. The CIT (A) directed the AO to adopt the correct taxable amount. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the direction to adopt the correct taxable amount.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal provided detailed directions for each issue, restoring several matters to the AO for fresh consideration and directing the CIT (A) to adjudicate on specific grounds. The appeals were disposed of with instructions to reassess the evidence and make decisions based on the law and facts presented.

← Previous Next →