2013 (12) TMI 476 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment u/s 69 - Addition of income on the basis of peak theory The assessee issued cheques of Rs.15,000/- on 29-08-2007 towards payment of SBI Card - The assessee has given one cheque to Raman Leela Sales and as per the enquiry from the bank, it is revealed that the said party deals in mobile sales and repairing therefore, this is also expenditure for purchase of mobile or for its repairing which is personal in nature - Held that - If addition is made on the basis of peak then, any expenditure incurred or investment made prior to the date of peak is to be added in the peak amount and if there is any income after the peak date, the same is also to be added The peak has been worked out as on 01- 11-2007 and 10-09-2007 - The learned CIT(A) has added in the income for the post-peak period, but there is no observation of the learned CIT(A) regarding expenses/investment prior to peak date - The working of peak by the learned CIT(A) is not sustainable The addition should be made on the basis of peak and not for entire credit in the undisclosed bank account The matter was set aside for fresh decision.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order restricting addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad concerned the revenue's challenge against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Surat for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in limiting the addition of Rs.14,41,263 made on account of unexplained investment to Rs.3,40,902 based on the peak of credit theory. The revenue argued that the assessee failed to disclose the bank account of The Surat People's Co-op Bank Ltd., and the credits in the bank account were not linked to the income from the retail business. Despite the absence of the respondent during the hearing, the revenue's case was presented by the DR, who supported the assessment order. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the lower authorities' orders, particularly focusing on the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the unexplained bank account entries. The CIT(A) had applied the peak amount of transactions as the suitable method, segregating the transactions into purchase/sale and self-cheques discounting categories. The CIT(A) calculated the peak amounts for both types of transactions separately and arrived at a total taxable income of Rs.3,40,902, significantly lower than the initial addition by the AO. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s approach as it did not account for expenses/investments before the peak date, such as a cheque issued for SBI Card payment prior to the peak date. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a proper assessment considering expenses/investments pre-peak date and post-peak income.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal directing a reassessment by the CIT(A) to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the unexplained investment based on the peak of credit theory, including a thorough consideration of expenses/investments before and after the peak date.