2013 (11) TMI 1242 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted investment for the purchase of land - taxability in the hands of individual assessee or company - held that - the registered sale deed dated 17.10.2007 was not executed between two individuals but it was purchased on behalf of a company, namely, CCCPL, on one hand, from other corporate entities, seven in number, on the other hand. Therefore, the transaction carried out was a well publisized transaction. Rather facts of the case have further revealed that earlier the land in question belonged to certain co-operative societies. Such a sale deed thus cannot be treated as a close-door-deal Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of evidence - those were not even the incriminating material but simply computer generated projectionsheets, therefore, hard to say, synonymous to clinching material evidence depicting cash transaction, hence erroneously suspected by the Revenue Department. We hereby hold that there was no evidence in possession of the Revenue Department to hold that the assessee had in fact made an unaccounted investment towards the purchase of the property. - Decided against the revenue. Deletion of addition by the CIT(A) on account of unaccounted income paid to outgoing surgeon doctors by holding that said amount should be taxed in the hands of the company M/s, CCCPL - Held that - In a situation when we have already taken a view that there was no element of on money in the purchase of the property in question then in consequence thereof, there was no element of payment of cash to the outgoing doctors. - No addition - Decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Unaccounted investment for the purchase of land.
2. Unexplained investment in shares.
3. Alleged cash payments to outgoing surgeons.
4. Direction to assess income in the hands of CCCPL.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Unaccounted Investment for the Purchase of Land:
The Revenue's primary contention was that the assessee made unaccounted cash payments for the purchase of land, which was not reflected in the books. The AO based this allegation on documents and a hard disk seized during a search operation, which purportedly showed that 85% of the land cost was paid in cash. The AO also relied on statements from certain doctors who admitted to cash payments.

Decision of the First Appellate Authority:
The CIT(A) found that the AO's reliance on the documents was misplaced, as these were merely projections and not actual evidence of cash payments. The CIT(A) noted that the land was purchased by CCCPL and not by the individual assessee, and thus directed that the amount should be taxed in the hands of CCCPL.

Tribunal's Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was no concrete evidence to support the Revenue's claim of cash payments. The documents were projections and not actual transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace concrete evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition in the hands of the individual assessee and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

2. Unexplained Investment in Shares:
The AO alleged that certain doctors made unexplained cash investments in CCCPL shares. The AO's basis was the assumption that shares were allotted at a premium, which included a cash component.

Decision of the First Appellate Authority:
The CIT(A) found no evidence of cash payments for the shares. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the additions but allowed for the possibility of examining the taxability in the hands of CCCPL.

Tribunal's Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed that there was no evidence to support the AO's claim of cash payments for share allotment. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

3. Alleged Cash Payments to Outgoing Surgeons:
The AO alleged that cash payments were made to outgoing surgeons as part of their exit from the hospital project. This was based on statements from the outgoing surgeons and certain entries in the seized documents.

Decision of the First Appellate Authority:
The CIT(A) noted that the outgoing surgeons did not directly transact with the assessee but with CCCPL. Therefore, any such payments should be taxed in the hands of CCCPL and not the individual assessee.

Tribunal's Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was correct in holding that any cash payments, if made, were by CCCPL and not the individual assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

4. Direction to Assess Income in the Hands of CCCPL:
The CIT(A) directed that certain amounts should be assessed in the hands of CCCPL, which was not the original subject of the assessment.

Tribunal's Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) overstepped his jurisdiction by directing the AO to assess income in the hands of CCCPL, which was not under appeal. The Tribunal reversed this direction, stating that such directions were beyond the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction.

Summary:
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, which were in favor of the assessees. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's claims were based on assumptions and projections without concrete evidence. The Tribunal also reversed the CIT(A)'s direction to assess income in the hands of CCCPL, stating it was beyond the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction. As a result, the appeals of the assessees were partly allowed.

← Previous Next →