2012 (9) TMI 650 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account unexplained investment Assessee introduced fresh capital in a firm AO had given reasonable opportunity of being heard Held that - The assessee had not additional evidence in form of affidavits before the A.O. or before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice and giving reasonable opportunity to the A.O. on fresh evidence. Case remand back to AO Disallowance of Interest expense u/s 57(iii) - The interest was paid for the purpose the earning of income - Assessee had filed PAN nos. of all the recipients of interest income & their ROI Held that - The assessee undisputedly borrowed the money which was utilized for the purpose of income from other source. The borrowings were made through bank account cheque. A.O. had not brought on record any evidence that these borrowings were used for personal purposes. Therefore, addition not justified. Decision in favour assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of CIT(A)-II, Baroda dated 30.10.2009.
2. Addition of Rs.2,10,000/- as unexplained investment in M/s. Neela Associates.
3. Disallowance of interest paid under sec.57 (iii) of the Act.
4. Incorrect application of Sec.14A and inconsistency in treatment of interest payment.

Issue 1:
The appeal challenges the order of CIT(A)-II, Baroda dated 30.10.2009. The appellant contested the grounds of appeal, arguing that the order was bad in law and facts. The Tribunal noted that the first ground of appeal was general, requiring no adjudication.

Issue 2:
Regarding the addition of Rs.2,10,000/- as unexplained investment in M/s. Neela Associates, the appellant introduced fresh capital of Rs. 2,65,000/- during the relevant year. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) made the addition under sec. 69 due to lack of details regarding the source of the capital. The CIT(A) upheld the addition based on discrepancies in the explanations provided. The Tribunal directed the matter to be restored to the A.O. for further examination, considering additional evidence submitted by the appellant.

Issue 3:
The third and fourth grounds of appeal pertain to the disallowance of interest under sec.57 (iii) and the incorrect application of Sec.14A. The A.O. disallowed interest expenses of Rs.2,13,205/- as the borrowings were not deemed essential for earning income. The CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance due to the lack of nexus between borrowings and income from other sources. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal, noting that the borrowings were utilized for income generation, and the interest expenses were genuine and allowable under sec.57 (iii).

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the addition of interest payment and directing a re-examination of the unexplained investment issue.