9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1262 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investments u/s. 69 - HELD THAT - To substantiate this claim the assessee has submitted the bank statements from Cosmos Co-Op Bank evidencing the amounts received from Sanghvi Infotech as repayment of loan and the amounts paid to Sanghvi Infotech as a consideration against 28, 00, 000 Right Shares. These bare facts could not be disputed on facts or on any other material by the DR. We hold that no addition is called for on account of investments in shares. Appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed. Gift received from anonymous - HELD THAT - We are still searching for appropriate words in the English dictionary to appreciate the dedication neutrality objectivity and judicious nature of the AO and CIT(A) while dealing with this issue. Having unable to find appropriate words we at least found the reasons why the taxpayer detests the tax authorities. We hold that the Revenue Authorities have failed to appreciate the issue in the right perspective and hence we hold that no addition on account of gift of shares received by the assessee from his brother can be treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed. Deduction u/s 57 - assessee has earned interest against the amount advanced (loans) to various parties - assessee has also paid interest from whom the amounts (loans) have been received - AO disallowed the deduction of interest claimed by the assessee u/s 57 - CIT(A) upheld the action - HELD THAT - The details of the name address and PAN numbers from whom the amounts have been received and interest paid has been duly given before the Revenue Authorities. The ledgers of all the 48 parties have been submitted before the Revenue Authorities. The ledgers reveal opening balances payment of the principal made during the year payment of receipt during the year and the interest payments. We also find on record the flow of money as advances and extending of loans to other parties. Hence it shall be treated as business activity of the assessee and claim of interest paid has to be allowed from the interest received. In the result appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this appeal are: (a) Whether the addition of Rs. 2,80,00,000 made as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of investment in shares of Sanghavi Infotech Private Limited, was justified. (b) Whether the addition of Rs. 39,76,000 treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 on account of shares received as gift from the assessee's alleged real brother was justified. (c) Whether the disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs. 56,28,281 under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act was justified. (d) Additionally, whether the entire interest income and interest expense should be treated under the head of business and profession, allowing set-off of interest expenses against interest income and other business income. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (a) Addition of Rs. 2,80,00,000 as unexplained investment in shares under Section 69 The relevant legal framework is Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which deals with unexplained investments. If an assessee has made investments and fails to satisfactorily explain the source of funds, such investments are added back to income as unexplained investments. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the investment in 28,00,000 shares allotted through Right Issue in Sanghavi Infotech Private Limited as unexplained investment since the assessee did not initially provide documentary evidence to substantiate the source of funds. The AO thus added Rs. 2,80,00,000 to the income. On appeal, the assessee submitted ledger accounts and bank statements evidencing that the investment was made from amounts received as repayment of loans advanced to Sanghavi Infotech Private Limited. The assessee produced copies of ledger accounts showing loans given and repayments received, as well as bank statements showing the flow of funds from loan repayment to share subscription. The Revenue did not dispute these facts or produce any contrary evidence. The Tribunal observed that the bare facts were not challenged and found that the assessee satisfactorily explained the source of funds used for investment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that no addition was warranted under Section 69 on this account and allowed the appeal on this ground. (b) Addition of Rs. 39,76,000 as unexplained investment on gift of shares from alleged brother under Section 69 Section 56(2)(x) read with relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act defines gifts received from specified relatives as exempt from income tax. Gifts from non-relatives or anonymous gifts are taxable and may be treated as unexplained investments if not satisfactorily explained. The assessee claimed to have received 3,97,600 shares as gift from his real brother, supported by a notarized gift deed and acknowledgment. However, the AO rejected the claim on the ground that the father's names mentioned in the PAN cards of the assessee and the alleged brother differed, concluding that they were not brothers as per the Act's definition of "relative". Hence, the gift was treated as received from an anonymous person and added as unexplained investment under Section 69. The AO's reasoning hinged solely on the difference in the father's names on PAN cards and did not consider other evidence such as affidavits affirming the brotherly relationship or the gift deed itself. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, relying on judicial precedent that an appellate authority must balance arguments and finding no cogent counter-arguments from the assessee. The Tribunal, however, criticized the Revenue authorities for their rigid and overly technical approach, noting the absence of any other material contradicting the brotherly relationship besides the variance in the father's name on PAN cards. The Tribunal emphasized the affidavits and gift deed submitted by the assessee and held that the Revenue failed to appreciate the issue properly. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the gift received from the brother could not be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 and allowed the appeal on this ground. (c) Disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 56,28,281 under Section 57 Section 57 of the Income Tax Act allows deduction of interest expenses incurred for earning income under the head "Income from Other Sources". The assessee had earned interest income of Rs. 56,89,413 from loans advanced to various parties and paid interest expenses of Rs. 56,28,281 on amounts borrowed. The AO disallowed the interest expense deduction, and the CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The assessee submitted detailed particulars of interest received and paid, including names, addresses, PAN numbers, ledger accounts showing opening balances, payments, receipts, and interest transactions for 48 parties. The ledger accounts demonstrated the flow of money and interest payments, establishing a clear business activity involving lending and borrowing. The Tribunal examined these details and held that the transactions constituted a business activity, and the interest expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for earning interest income. Therefore, the interest expenses were allowable deductions under Section 57 against the interest income. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on this ground, reversing the disallowance. (d) Additional ground regarding treatment of interest income and expense under business and profession The assessee sought a direction to treat the entire interest income and interest expense under the head "business and profession" to allow set-off of interest expenses against interest income and other business income. The Tribunal, while allowing the interest expense deduction under Section 57, implicitly recognized the business nature of the transactions as evidenced by the detailed ledgers and flow of funds. This recognition supports the assessee's contention that interest income and expenses arise from business activities and should be treated accordingly. Although the Tribunal did not explicitly direct the Assessing Officer to treat the interest income and expenses under the head "business and profession," the allowance of interest expenses and acknowledgment of the business activity effectively address the assessee's contention. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal pronounced the following crucial legal reasoning and principles: On unexplained investments under Section 69, the Tribunal held: "In the absence of any contrary evidences, we hold that no addition is called for on account of investments in shares." This establishes that mere suspicion without contrary evidence cannot justify additions under Section 69 where the assessee produces credible documentary evidence of the source of funds. Regarding gifts from relatives, the Tribunal stated: "The Revenue Authorities have failed to appreciate the issue in the right perspective and hence we hold that no addition on account of gift of shares received by the assessee from his brother can be treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act." This underscores the principle that the Revenue must consider all evidence and not rely solely on technical discrepancies when determining the nature of gifts from relatives. On the disallowance of interest expenses, the Tribunal observed: "The ledgers reveal opening balances, payment of the principal made during the year, payment of receipt during the year and the interest payments... Hence, it shall be treated as business activity of the assessee and claim of interest paid has to be allowed from the interest received." This clarifies that where interest income and expenses arise from genuine business activities, the interest expenses are deductible under Section 57. Final determinations:
|
