2013 (5) TMI 586 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment - value of security provided to bank i.e. equitable mortgage on land and building - Held that - This is a simple case of taking a bank loan by adopting the fair market value of the property for the purpose of equitable mortgage but actually the book value of the property is Rs.2.35 lakh. AO cannot make addition on the basis of market valuation done by the valuer for the purpose of obtaining higher loan. A higher valuation in no way gives any right to the AO to make addition of income, under any of the provisions of the Act, in the hands of the assessee, rather it is only for obtaining loan or cash credit limit from bank. Thus delete the addition and this issue of assessee s appeal is allowed. Addition on account of undisclosed FDR from the bank mortgage - Held that - Assessee stated the facts that original RIP certificate of Rs.40,000/- i.e. FDR was obtained by assessee on 14.11.1998 and this was renewed on 14.11.2005 at Rs.71,205/- and there is no FDR of Rs.83,000/- ever assessee had. It is clear that assessee s FDR is only of Rs.71,205/- and which was also made out of withdrawn amount of Rs.40,000/- made on 14.11.1998. As the facts are not available in the assessment order or in the order of CIT(A), this needs verification. The assessee can lead the evidence and AO will decide accordingly. This issue is set aside to the file of AO. This ground of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of depreciation on computer - CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the basis that no evidence was filed before him - Held that - As the assessee has filed evidence before us but these need verification. Hence, restore this issue to the file of AO for verification and decide the issue as per law - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order without issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of Rs.10.5 lakh as unexplained investment on security provided to the bank.
3. Addition of Rs.83,000 as undisclosed fixed deposit receipt (FDR) value.
4. Disallowance of depreciation on a computer.

Issue 1: Validity of Assessment Order:
The appeal challenged the validity of the assessment order due to the absence of a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The counsel for the assessee withdrew this issue, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn.

Issue 2: Addition on Unexplained Investment:
The dispute involved the addition of Rs.10.5 lakh as unexplained investment on security provided to the bank. The AO observed discrepancies in the value declared for the land and building used as security for a loan. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing the lack of documentation and valuation reports. However, the ITAT found that the higher valuation for obtaining a loan did not justify an income addition, thus deleting the amount.

Issue 3: Undisclosed FDR Value:
The AO added Rs.83,000 as an undisclosed FDR value, which the assessee contested. The ITAT noted discrepancies in the assessment order and CIT(A)'s decision, requiring further verification. The ITAT set aside this issue for the AO to re-examine based on additional evidence.

Issue 4: Disallowance of Depreciation on Computer:
The appeal contested the disallowance of depreciation on a computer amounting to Rs.14,640. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance due to lack of evidence of the computer purchase. The ITAT found that the assessee had submitted evidence, necessitating verification by the AO. Consequently, the ITAT remanded this issue to the AO for proper assessment.

In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, addressing each issue concerning the validity of the assessment order, unexplained investments, undisclosed FDR value, and depreciation disallowance on a computer. The ITAT emphasized the importance of proper documentation and valuation evidence in tax assessments.