2013 (4) TMI 93 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on account of undisclosed income - difference in cash balance as per the regular balance and balance submitted during the course of the proceedings. - held that - The Tribunal appears to have decided the issue on the ground that the Assessing Officer has gone more on conjectures, where he held that as per the disclosed sources of income the assessee should have possessed more cash. It is rightly pointed out that it is not the case of the Department that the asset was found and not explained by the assessee. Therefore, nobody was empowered to add anything on the basis of such kind of findings. Issue is essentially based on facts and since logic given is unacceptable, it calls for no interference.

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.15,68,700/- on account of difference in cash balance
2. Addition of Rs.20,89,516/- on account of cash payment to sub-contractors
3. Addition of Rs.9.10 lakhs being income of HPCL pump
4. Disallowance of Rs.35.89 lakhs being diesel oil expenses

Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs.15,68,700/- on account of difference in cash balance:
The Assessing Officer made an addition based on the difference in cash balance as per regular balance and balance submitted during proceedings. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal both found the Assessing Officer's approach flawed. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's conclusion did not provide a valid reason for adding to the disclosed income of the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's findings were based on conjectures and did not justify any addition to the income. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that the issue was factual and the logic applied was unacceptable, warranting no interference.

2. Addition of Rs.20,89,516/- on account of cash payment to sub-contractors:
The second issue involved a cash payment made to sub-contractors, which the Assessing Officer added to the income due to lack of evidence. The CIT (Appeals) overturned this decision, noting that the company had offered Rs.40 lakhs as payment to the sub-contractor, and no further addition was warranted. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT (Appeals), highlighting that the source of investment of Rs.40 lakhs had already been disclosed as additional income. The Tribunal found the CIT (Appeals) reasoning sound and logical, with no error in the decision. The issue was deemed properly decided, requiring no intervention.

3. Addition of Rs.9.10 lakhs being income of HPCL pump:
Regarding the addition of Rs.9.10 lakhs as income from HPCL pump, the CIT (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention, which the Tribunal upheld. The Tribunal noted that the imprest payment made by the assessee was assessed to tax, and there was no basis for separately assessing the source of that asset to avoid double assessment. The Tribunal found no material to refute the findings and upheld the decision of the CIT (Appeals), emphasizing the factual nature of the issue and the absence of errors.

4. Disallowance of Rs.35.89 lakhs being diesel oil expenses:
The final issue pertained to disallowance of Rs.35.89 lakhs for diesel oil expenses not reflected in the books. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the expenditure for business purposes, despite not being in the books. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the expenses were made by cheques and shown as recoverable from HPCL Pump. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents to support its decision that interest in books of accounts was not relevant for allowable expenses. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the CIT (Appeals) findings, considering the error in accounting treatment as minor and insufficient to deny genuine expense deduction.

In conclusion, all issues were primarily factual, and the Tribunal's decisions were based on sound reasoning and supported by the material presented. No legal questions arose, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.

← Previous Next →