1997 (7) TMI 189 - AT - Income Tax

2013 (10) TMI 516 - AT

Issues Involved:

1. Addition of Rs. 20,65,000 as income from other sources.
2. Availability and use of old materials valued at Rs. 6,66,140.
3. Diversion of materials worth Rs. 4,42,120 supplied by Government departments.
4. Diversion of materials worth Rs. 5,25,000 purchased by the firm Anirudhan Associates.
5. Credit of Rs. 70,000 for labor used from the firm Anirudhan Associates.
6. Outstanding liability of Rs. 1,00,000 towards wages.
7. Availability of credit facilities from cement suppliers amounting to Rs. 1,45,000.
8. Reliability of the LIC valuer's report estimating the cost of construction at Rs. 22 lakhs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 20,65,000 as Income from Other Sources:
The AO added Rs. 20,65,000 as income from other sources due to unexplained investment in the construction of a shopping-cum-office complex. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims regarding the source of funds for the investment.

2. Availability and Use of Old Materials Valued at Rs. 6,66,140:
The assessee claimed to have used old materials from previous government contracts for the construction. The Tribunal found merit in the claim for materials from the Kerala legislative complex, as the Executive Engineer confirmed that materials were to be returned by the assessee. The Tribunal allowed credit for the value of these materials, totaling Rs. 2,55,000.

3. Diversion of Materials Worth Rs. 4,42,120 Supplied by Government Departments:
The assessee claimed to have diverted materials supplied for current government contracts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject this claim due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal noted that it was improbable for the assessee to divert such a large quantity of materials without the knowledge of PWD officials.

4. Diversion of Materials Worth Rs. 5,25,000 Purchased by the Firm Anirudhan Associates:
The assessee's claim of diverting materials purchased by the firm was not substantiated by evidence. The Tribunal found that the ledger entries relied upon by the assessee were not sufficient to prove the diversion of materials for the construction of Vasanthom Towers.

5. Credit of Rs. 70,000 for Labor Used from the Firm Anirudhan Associates:
The Tribunal allowed credit for Rs. 70,000 towards labor charges, accepting the claim that the assessee could make use of labor from the firm for the construction of the shopping complex and subsequently reimburse the firm.

6. Outstanding Liability of Rs. 1,00,000 Towards Wages:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the claim of Rs. 1,00,000 as outstanding labor charges. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that it was unlikely for laborers to wait for two to three months for their wages, especially given their financial circumstances.

7. Availability of Credit Facilities from Cement Suppliers Amounting to Rs. 1,45,000:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the claim of Rs. 1,45,000 as credit purchase of cement. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide any evidence or details regarding the credit purchase of cement.

8. Reliability of the LIC Valuer's Report Estimating the Cost of Construction at Rs. 22 Lakhs:
The Tribunal found no fault with the AO or the CIT(A) in relying on the LIC valuer's report, which estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 22 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not questioned the report before the LIC, AO, or CIT(A). The Tribunal also considered the fact that the assessee had insured the building for Rs. 29 lakhs, which supported the valuation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to revise the assessment to reduce the addition accordingly. The Tribunal accepted the claim for credit of Rs. 2,55,000 for materials from the Kerala legislative complex and Rs. 70,000 for labor charges, while rejecting other claims due to lack of evidence.

← Previous Next →