2020 (10) TMI 882 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investment made in purchase of land - ITAT deleted the addition - HELD THAT - There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two authorities, namely the CIT(A) as well as the Appellate Tribunal, that there is no material on record to prove conclusively that the investment made by the assessee had not been shown in the books of accounts. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against ITAT order for Assessment Year 2012-2013. Substantial question of law regarding deletion of addition under section 69 for unexplained investment in land.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat heard an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue against the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', dated 9th January 2020 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The main issue raised was whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law by upholding the decision of CIT(A) to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act concerning unexplained investment in land. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence proving conclusively that the investment was not reflected in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) found that no payment was made by the assessee in that year, and after examining various agreements and legal documents, concluded that no asset was created in the name of the assessee requiring entry in the books of accounts. The High Court noted the concurrent findings of fact by both the CIT(A) and the Appellate Tribunal, stating there was no material to definitively prove that the investment was undisclosed in the books of accounts. Consequently, the Court held that the question raised by the Revenue did not qualify as a substantial question of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the appeal by the Revenue as there was a lack of conclusive evidence to support the addition of unexplained investment made by the assessee in the purchase of land under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The Court upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the absence of material on record to establish that the investment was not reflected in the books of accounts. The decision highlighted the importance of concrete evidence in tax matters and the necessity to prove undisclosed investments beyond assumptions.