2015 (11) TMI 423 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The addition is on account of alleged nondisclosure of the debit balance ₹ 14,91,448/- appearing in the assessee s ledger account in the books of the broker, SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. as on 01/04/04. The assessee in her books in the said broker s personal ledger account shows no opening balance of that sum. The AO was under wrong belief that this receipt from the said party has been suppressed and he has thus made the addition. But it was explained to the AO that at the end of the earlier financially year the said party wrongly issued a cheque to the assessee for the amount which the assessee surrendered on the very opening day of the instant year vide our submitted ledger account. Therefore, in the assessee s account this does not appear as opening balance. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate. Reference to earlier year s ledger account of the broker account could have resolved the question not entailing any addition. It is an uncleared cheque received at the end of the earlier year and returned at the vey opening day of the year without any transmission of the value on either side. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition made on account of anomaly of bank deposits - this addition is also based on the wrong allegation of bank account having been tampered - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The AO has failed to appreciate as in the other case that this particular document, as already said, is only a partial representation showing only this specific parameter of investment and varying of investment during the year. It is quite apparent that the original copy of the Bank account received from UCO Bank offers a complete tally with the copy of the Bank ledger account in the assessee s books of account showing that there is no concealment of any payment/receipt. The payment of first cheque of ₹ 6 lac appeared in the ledger copy against 10/05/2004. Therefore, the inference of the two payments being unaccounted for is on account of confused approach to the whole matter. The AO is singularly mistaken. there is no ground for the addition for the mere clerical error in the broker s account. Irrespective of the error, the inexorable fact is that this very sum of ₹ 3,25,000/- forms part of the assessee s revenue receipt entering the profit and loss account. However, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition of ₹ 12 lac but sustained the addition of ₹ 3.25 lac on the reasoning that this ₹ 12 lac has been explained vis- -vis the original bank pass book of Uco Bank and that the ledger account copy of the assessee s books of account. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 3.25 lac being the profit of the assessee and assessee has not challenged the order of CIT(A) on this account. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 12 lacs is confirmed.- Decided in favour of assessee. Undisclosed credit in bank account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - For want of circumspection and for non-appreciation due to obsessive suspicion he failed to see that what he condemns as tampered bank account is, in fact, not the entire bank account but contains one parameter of the bank account related to investment in securities meant for correlation of assessee s investment in securities with the force of the money in bank so invested and to prove that the investments are from within the assessee s disclosed bank account. This segmented bank account being mistaken for the copy of the assessee s full bank ledger, the adverse inference is drawn as to suppression of the receipts of ₹ 20,72,715.43. Its remissness is too obvious when pitted against the bank ledger in the assessee s accounts which discloses both the sums. There is no cause for any inference of suppression and the resultant error of adding the sum. The same is straightway wrongful disallowance in view of the patent state of accounts steering on the face. Accordingly, this addition has rightly been deleted by CIT(A) and we confirm the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition made by AO on account of gift - CIT(A) deleted the addition of gift after taking remand report from the AO on the additional evidences - Held that - Assessee submitted a notarized declaration of gift from Dr. Ashok Shroff, copy of donor s bank account with Key Bank, inwards remittance on Oriental Bank of Commerce, copy of Passport of Sri Jayant Shroff showing him to be son of Sri Vasudev Shroff and husband of the assessee and also copy of passport of Sri Ashok Shroff, donor. The said documents being in the nature of additional evidences were admitted as they had a material bearing on the case and could not be submitted earlier as not all of these were in the possession of the assessee at the time of assessment. In view of these documents, the CIT(A) concluded, after taking remand report from the AO, that the credit entries on account of gift received from Dr. Ashok Shroff are genuine and the identity and creditworthiness of Dr. Ashok Shroff is proved. Accordingly, he deleted the addition as made by AO by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the same is confirmed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained investment - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Payment to Shilpa Stock Broker (P) Ltd was made by cheque from the Bank A/c and this is reflected in the Bank Statement and also mentioned in the confirmation filed. It was also mentioned that in the confirmation the PAN No. of the party is also provided. It was submitted that since the payment was made through disclosed bank account and the investment was reflected in the balance sheet and thereby in the books of a/cs., the same could not be considered as undisclosed investment of the assessee. It was submitted that no addition could be made under these circumstances. It was further mentioned that the amount paid to Shipla Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. was out of loan of ₹ 4,00,000/- received form Apeksha Jaggi and ₹ 2,00,000/- received from SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that the amount was refunded to Apeksha Juggi along with interest. This interest has been claimed in the P & L a/c. and allowed by the AO. It was submitted that while making the assessment the AO never raised any doubt regarding the source. It was also submitted that the bank statement of Oriental Bank of Commerce was field with the AO. The assessee also filed confirmation from Apeksha Jaggi. Bank statement and I.T return of Apeksha Jaggi in support of its claim. In view of these facts, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 14,91,448.
2. Addition on account of anomaly of bank deposits of Rs. 12 lakh and Rs. 20,72,715.
3. Addition of Rs. 9,39,060 as unexplained cash credit.
4. Addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 5 lakh.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Unexplained Investment of Rs. 14,91,448:
The first issue revolves around the addition of Rs. 14,91,448 as unexplained investment by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO noticed discrepancies in the assessee's bank statement and ledger account with SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. The AO observed that a cheque of Rs. 14,91,448 issued by the broker was not reflected in the assessee's balance sheet as of 31/03/2004. The assessee explained that the cheque was returned to the broker on 01/04/2004, and the entry was reversed. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the accounts were reconciled and there was no undisclosed investment. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO failed to appreciate the reconciliation of the accounts.

2. Addition on Account of Anomaly of Bank Deposits of Rs. 12 Lakh and Rs. 20,72,715:
The second issue pertains to the addition made by the AO due to discrepancies in the bank deposits. The AO alleged that the assessee tampered with the bank statement to suppress credits of Rs. 12 lakh and Rs. 20,72,715. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 12 lakh, noting that the complete bank statement and ledger account reconciled the transactions. However, the CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 3.25 lakh due to insufficient evidence from the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of Rs. 12 lakh, stating that the AO's allegations were based on a sectional view of the bank transactions and failed to consider the complete bank statement. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of Rs. 20,72,715, emphasizing that the AO's addition was based on a preconceived notion and failed to appreciate the complete bank ledger.

3. Addition of Rs. 9,39,060 as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The third issue involves the addition of Rs. 9,39,060 as unexplained cash credit. The AO questioned the genuineness of the gift received from the assessee's brother-in-law, Dr. Ashok Shroff, and treated it as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after examining additional evidence, including the birth certificate and passports, which established the relationship between the donor and the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the identity and creditworthiness of the donor were proved, and the gift was genuine.

4. Addition of Unexplained Investment of Rs. 5 Lakh:
The fourth issue concerns the addition of Rs. 5 lakh as unexplained investment. The AO made the addition due to a lack of proper confirmation from Shilpa Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the transaction was recorded in the books and mentioned in the balance sheet, making Section 69 inapplicable. The CIT(A) also noted that the source of the investment was explained through bank statements and confirmations. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the investment was reflected in the disclosed bank account and the balance sheet, and the source was adequately explained.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues, confirming the deletions of additions made by the AO. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.