2013 (5) TMI 589 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted purchase of plot - rejection of books of accounts - assessee pleaded that he had purchased a plot of land with funds provided by his second wife who gave him cash of Rs. 9 lakhs and her two brothers has also gifted him Rs. 4 lakhs on the eve of second marriage - Held that - AO has written a letter dated 17.12.2008 to the assessee and provided him final opportunity to explain and said that as to why Rs. 12 lacs may not be added to his taxable income for the assessment year in dispute but assessee could not explain the source of Rs. 9.99 lacs and he has written a letter dated 22.12.2008 to the AO and surrendered Rs. 9.99 lacs as additional income for the assessment year in dispute. Assessee has explained only the source of Rs. 2,80,000/- which was given to the assessee by his second wife by selling residential house in 2001 on 23.03.2001. Thus Revenue Authority is wholly justified in making the addition of Rs. 9.99 lacs u/s 69 because assessee voluntarily surrendered Rs. 9.99 lacs vide his letter dated 22.12.2008 offered for taxation purpose. As regard to the addition of bank loan interest debiting in the Profit and Loss Account, which is said to be returned in installment by the assessee to the HDFC Bank, AO verified the same from HDFC Bank under Section 133(6) and the said bank informed that the loan in dispute was raised by assessee s son, Sh. Jasbir Singh, Prop. M/s Milap Foundry Works and not by the assessee for his own business purposes and he has acted simply as a guarantor for the same. Thus FAA has passed a well reasoned order by rightly upholding the addition in dispute - appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and factual correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
2. Source of funds for the purchase of a plot of land.
3. Loan taken by the assessee and its reflection in the balance sheet.
4. Addition of Rs. 9.99 lakhs as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act.
5. Disallowance of interest paid to HDFC Bank.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Factual Correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) Order:
The assessee contested that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was contrary to law and facts. However, the tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the assessment order based on substantial evidence and proper reasoning. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the legality and factual correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

2. Source of Funds for the Purchase of a Plot of Land:
The assessee claimed that the funds for purchasing the plot were provided by his second wife, Smt. Darshan Kaur, and her brothers. However, during the proceedings, Smt. Darshan Kaur could only substantiate Rs. 2,80,000/- from the sale of her residential house. The remaining amount could not be satisfactorily explained. The tribunal noted that the assessee voluntarily surrendered Rs. 9.99 lakhs as additional income, acknowledging the unexplained source of funds.

3. Loan Taken by the Assessee and Its Reflection in the Balance Sheet:
The assessee had shown a secured loan of Rs. 12,01,562/- from HDFC Bank in the balance sheet and claimed interest paid on this loan. However, the HDFC Bank confirmed that the loan was taken by the assessee's son, Sh. Jasbir Singh, with the assessee acting as a guarantor. The tribunal upheld the disallowance of the interest claimed, as the loan was not for the assessee's business purposes.

4. Addition of Rs. 9.99 Lakhs as Unexplained Investment Under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act:
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 9.99 lakhs as unexplained investment under Section 69, which the assessee had surrendered voluntarily. The tribunal found that the assessee could not provide satisfactory evidence for the source of Rs. 9.99 lakhs and upheld the addition, stating that the surrender was not voluntary but a result of being unable to explain the source.

5. Disallowance of Interest Paid to HDFC Bank:
The assessee claimed interest of Rs. 1,12,302/- paid to HDFC Bank. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, as the loan was taken by the assessee's son and not for the assessee's business. The tribunal upheld this disallowance, agreeing with the Assessing Officer's findings based on the information from HDFC Bank.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The tribunal found that the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the source of funds for the plot purchase and the interest claimed on the loan, thus justifying the additions under Section 69 and the disallowance of the interest claim. The order was pronounced in the open court on 13th May, 2013.