2012 (11) TMI 624 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69C - Unexplained Expenditure Assessing Officer held that the assessee-firm has made payment of Rs.2,07,25,297 (30% of Rs.6,90,84,323) to the retiring partner out of undisclosed sources in order to avail the benefit of assets left by the retiring partner for the business purpose of the assessee-firm. The Assessing Officer applied the provisions of section 69C of the Act and made addition of Rs.2,07,25,297. - held tha - what is postulated in section 69C of the Act is that first of all the assessee must have incurred that expenditure and thereafter, if the explanation offered by the sssessee about the source of such expenditure is not found satisfactory by the Assessing Officer, the amount may be added to his income. CIT v. Lubtech India Ltd, 2007 (7) TMI 281 - DELHI HIGH COURT The showroom was owned by the retiring partner and the assessee-firm continued to pay rent to the retiring partner at the same rate. The firm was not taken over by any of the agency. Therefore, there cannot be question of estimating the value of the goodwill. In the Present case even if it is assumed that some benefit is accrued on the retirement of the third partner, the benefit may be accrued to the surviving partners and not to the assessee-firm. In case of that, if any addition is required to be made the same can be made in the hands of the individual partners and not to the assessee-firm. There is no evidence on record that any amount over and above the amount declared in the capital account has ever been paid to the retiring partner either by the assessee-firm or by the remaining partners. In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be assumed or presumed that a substantial amount of Rs.2,07,25,297 has been paid to the retiring partner by the assessee-firm - no merit in the addition made by the Assessing Officer - Order of the CIT(A) is confirmed - In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of undisclosed expenditure.
2. Justification of addition of Rs.2,07,25,297 by the Assessing Officer.
3. Consideration of assets and liabilities in reconstitution of partnership firm.
4. Assessment of alleged unexplained expenditure and deletion of addition by the ld. CIT(A).
5. Appeal by the Revenue challenging the deletion of addition.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the application of section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to undisclosed expenditure. The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs.2,07,25,297 by the ld. CIT(A) based on the provisions of section 69C.

2. The Assessing Officer contended that the assessee-firm made a payment of Rs.2,07,25,297 to a retiring partner from undisclosed sources to benefit from assets left by the retiring partner. This led to the addition of the said amount under section 69C.

3. The reconstitution of the partnership firm involved considerations of assets and liabilities. The Assessing Officer assessed the value of the showroom, goodwill, and closing stock to determine the cost of the retiring partner's share in the assets. However, the ld. CIT(A) found discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's approach.

4. The ld. CIT(A) examined the issue in detail and concluded that the alleged expenditure was not actually incurred by the assessee-firm. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the ld. CIT(A) emphasized the requirement for the actual incurrence of expenditure before invoking section 69C. The addition was deemed unjustified and based on conjectures.

5. The Revenue appealed the decision, arguing that the Assessing Officer rightly assessed the value of assets as the retiring partner relinquished his rights. However, the Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that there was no evidence of any additional payment beyond what was recorded in the books. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal and factual aspects of the judgment, focusing on the application of tax provisions, assessment of undisclosed expenditure, and the reasoning behind the deletion of the addition by the ld. CIT(A) and subsequent confirmation by the Tribunal.