2016 (4) TMI 130 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of difference in estimated value of shops and actual receipt - assessee has dissolved firm and distributed shop to partners - Held that - CIT(A) has examined the issue lucidly and that too of all possible angles. The firm was disallowed w.e.f. 1-4-2006. On dissolution of the firm, assets must have been distributed. Unsold stocks represented shops/offices space fallen to the assessee. The moment the firm was dissolved, this stock was converted into capital assets of the partners. The AO could have taken action as per section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act against the firm on its dissolution in that assessment year. The ld.First Appellate Authority has examined this aspect in the findings. Once it is held as capital asset, then, the capital gain would accrue to the assessee and it can be enhanced with the help of section 50C only. The ld.CIT(A) has also done that. This action of the ld.CIT(A) has not been challenged by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal. - Decided against revenue Addition on advances given to some agriculturists in cash - Held that - No merit in this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. The assessee has explained that the source of money has duly been accounted for in his books. The AO has not doubted this source of money. Therefore, he cannot make the addition.- Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of difference in estimated value of shops and actual receipt.
2. Deletion of addition on account of alleged unaccounted investments in cash advances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Difference in Estimated Value of Shops and Actual Receipt:

The primary issue was the addition of ?39,49,320/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the difference between the estimated value of shops and the actual receipt. The AO contended that the shops sold by the assessee were undervalued, estimating the market price at ?2,500 per sq. ft., resulting in an addition of ?1,63,16,250/-.

The CIT(A) deleted this addition, reasoning that the assets were capital assets, and only capital gain could be levied. The CIT(A) invoked Section 50C, which states that if the consideration received from the transfer of a capital asset is less than the value adopted for stamp duty, the latter should be considered for capital gains computation. The CIT(A) determined the stamp duty value of the properties at ?27,52,800/-, and the assessee had shown a sale value of ?25,83,750/-, thus only the difference was added for capital gain purposes.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that upon the firm's dissolution, the stock converted into capital assets for the partners. The AO could have taken action under Section 45(4) at the time of dissolution. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, rejecting the Revenue's ground.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Alleged Unaccounted Investments in Cash Advances:

The second issue involved the deletion of an addition of ?15,65,000/- made by the AO, who alleged that the assessee had given cash advances to agriculturists without agreements, considering them unaccounted investments.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the advances were duly accounted for and reflected in the assessee's accounts. The CIT(A) emphasized that the source of funds was explained and not disputed by the AO. The CIT(A) also noted that there is no legal requirement for agreements to validate such advances and that confirmations of the recipients were provided.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the source of money was duly accounted for and not doubted by the AO. Therefore, the addition had no merit and was rightly deleted.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s findings on both issues. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s examination of the issues comprehensive and legally sound, resulting in the deletion of the disputed additions. The order was pronounced on 1st April 2016 at Ahmedabad.