9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 120 - HC - Income TaxProvisions of section 69 after renovation - Held that - No doubt it has come on record as argued by Mr. Singhi that it is make to believe but that is block assessment. In our opinion in view of the provisions of section 69 no error has been committed by the Tribunal. - Decided in favour of the assessee and against the department.
Issues Involved:
1. Reduction of additions for renovation of Hotel Hawa Mahal. 2. Allowance of set-off of lease payment. 3. Flow back of unexplained lease payments. 4. Deletion of additions for investment in Kullu land. 5. Deletion of additions for investment in Raisina land. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Reduction of Additions for Renovation of Hotel Hawa Mahal The Department questioned the Tribunal's decision to reduce the additions from ?15,81,000 to ?3,12,932 for the renovation of Hotel Hawa Mahal, arguing that there was no material on record to justify this reduction. The Tribunal had reduced the amount based on the lack of entries in the books of accounts and solely on the admission by a representative during the search. The Court held that the Tribunal did not err in its decision, citing the provisions of section 69 of the Income-tax Act, which deals with unexplained investments. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's judgment and ruled in favor of the assessee. Issue 2: Allowance of Set-off of Lease Payment The Tribunal allowed the set-off of ?16 lakhs as lease payment, which was initially disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Department argued that the Tribunal's decision was baseless. However, the Tribunal had found that the total lease rent was not disputed and that the balance amount was paid from undisclosed sources, which was offered for tax. The Tribunal granted the telescoping benefit, deleting the addition of ?16 lakhs. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's view and ruled in favor of the assessee. Issue 3: Flow Back of Unexplained Lease Payments The Tribunal held that ?16 lakhs had flown back from unexplained lease payments. The Tribunal found that the availability of cash was already proven and that the amount could not be taxed twice. The Tribunal deleted the addition of ?16 lakhs, allowing the assessee the benefit of this amount. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's judgment and ruled in favor of the assessee. Issue 4: Deletion of Additions for Investment in Kullu Land The Tribunal deleted the additions of ?1,73,600 for investment in Kullu land. The Assessing Officer had confirmed this in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), but the Tribunal found the addition to be perverse and deleted it. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's judgment and ruled in favor of the assessee. Issue 5: Deletion of Additions for Investment in Raisina Land The Tribunal deleted the additions of ?4,82,065 for investment in Raisina land. The Assessing Officer had confirmed this in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), but the Tribunal found the addition to be perverse and deleted it. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's judgment and ruled in favor of the assessee. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the Department's appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on all issues. The Court found no substantial questions of law and agreed with the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence and concurrent findings. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
|
