2013 (3) TMI 511 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed Income under Section 69A of the Act - Deleting the addition - unreliability of the accounts - Search & seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Furnish return for the block period - Held that - It is true that the records may be incomplete. But this largely due to the fact that the assessee is a fisherman and he is illiterate and nomadic. Most of his transactions are required to be carried out in cash. It would be practically impossible to maintain vouchers and other preliminary records. The nature of business is such that half of the year he would be in high seas. - Decided against the revenue.

Issues:
1. Whether the ITAT was right in deleting the additions of undisclosed income made by the A.O?
2. Whether the ITAT erred in not appreciating evidences proving unreliability of the accounts?
3. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of undisclosed income, considering the genuineness of the creditor?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved the deletion of additions of undisclosed income by the ITAT. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the addition of Rs. 26.80 lakhs as undisclosed income of the assessee. The ITAT found that the assessee reconciled the cash position at the time of seizure, providing details of inflow and outflow, which the Assessing Officer and CIT [A] did not find defective. The Tribunal considered the nature of the assessee's business as a fisherman, his illiteracy, and nomadic lifestyle, which made maintaining proper records challenging. The Tribunal accepted the genuineness of the assessee's attempts to rectify the records, which the A.O had rejected. The Tribunal concluded that the initial statement of the assessee explaining the source of cash held more credibility than subsequent statements, which were retracted. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the issue was primarily factual, and there was no error in the Tribunal's appreciation of the facts presented.

Issue 2:
The second issue pertained to the ITAT's alleged failure to appreciate evidences proving the unreliability of the accounts. The Assessing Officer and CIT [A] had raised concerns about the reliability of the assessee's accounts, leading to the addition of undisclosed income. However, the ITAT disagreed with the lower authorities, highlighting that the assessee's illiteracy and the nature of his business justified the incomplete records. The Tribunal found that the initial statement of the assessee, explaining the cash source, was more reliable than subsequent statements. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's ill health during the assessment proceedings, which affected his ability to maintain proper records. Ultimately, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the issue was fact-based, and there was no legal question raised.

Issue 3:
The third issue revolved around the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs as undisclosed income, where the ITAT held that the assessee fulfilled the criteria of a genuine credit. The ITAT considered the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the creditor, despite the creditor being of limited means. The Tribunal disagreed with the Assessing Officer and CIT [A], who had confirmed the addition, and found that the cash amount was reconciled by the assessee. The ITAT emphasized that the CIT [A]'s apprehension regarding the cash spent on business expenses was speculative and lacked supporting evidence. The Tribunal allowed this ground and ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the factual circumstances and the genuineness of the credit.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing the factual nature of the issues and the absence of legal errors. The Tax Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →