2014 (12) TMI 510 - AT - Income Tax

Classification of income Rental income or income from house property Held that - CIT(A) rightly was of the view that no evidence or reasons were provided - the assessee is in the business of trading in various items and not in the business of purchasing properties and letting them out - in order for rental income to be considered as income from business, the assessee has to demonstrate that certain well planned activities were being carried out in that property for the purposes of profits so as to have that income qualify as business income - from the information available on record it is clear that the assessee is only a passive receiver of rent the rental income is rightly classified as income from house property Decided against assessee. Expenses disallowed u/s 37 Held that - CIT(A) rightly was of the view that no evidence was produced to show the genuineness of the expenditure - no business whatsoever was conducted by the assessee company during the year - not a single voucher or any other evidence was produced to substantiate the veracity of the expenses claimed the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against assessee. Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 disallowed Held that - Though the CIT(A) called for Remand Report in respect of the credits, the AO failed to submit the same thus, the matter is required to be remitted back to the AO for reconsideration and the assessee shall be provided sufficient opportunity to produce the required material before him Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of rental income.
2. Disallowance of business expenditure under Section 37.
3. Disallowance of depreciation.
4. Addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 68.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Rental Income:
The assessee argued that rental income should be classified as business income rather than income from house property. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not provide evidence or reasons to support this claim and observed that the assessee is engaged in trading, not in property letting. The CIT(A) concluded that the rental income was rightly classified as income from house property, as the assessee was a passive receiver of rent without demonstrating any planned business activities. This view was upheld by the Tribunal, rejecting the assessee's ground.

2. Disallowance of Business Expenditure under Section 37:
The assessee claimed business expenditure of Rs. 79,611 under different heads, but the AO disallowed it on the grounds that no business activity was conducted during the year. The CIT(A) agreed, noting the absence of evidence to prove the genuineness of the expenditure. The Tribunal also upheld this disallowance, as the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the expenses.

3. Disallowance of Depreciation:
The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee, observing that the building was not a business asset. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the disallowance was upheld based on the overall context of the judgment.

4. Addition of Unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68:
The AO added Rs. 13,88,78,085 as unexplained cash credits under Section 68, as the assessee failed to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee provided photocopies of confirmation letters without proper authentication and failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request for another opportunity to provide evidence, remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination, directing the AO to reconsider the additional evidence provided by the assessee.

5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The CIT(A) confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the penalty proceedings were upheld based on the overall context of the judgment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s classification of rental income as income from house property and the disallowance of business expenditure under Section 37. The issue of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination. The disallowance of depreciation and initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were implicitly upheld. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, providing the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its claims regarding unexplained cash credits.