2021 (9) TMI 1075 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C - Addition of expenditure incurred for the development expenses as claimed - addition of credits in appellant's bank account - assessee could not explain satisfactorily about the transactions undertaken by him for the purchase of properties and the AO examined in detail the transactions done from the bank account of the assessee - AO has not doubted the source of funds received by the assessee through banking channels, but, the AO has added the entire amount as unexplained u/s. 69C - HELD THAT - When the assessee incurred any expenditure and no explanation offered about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, then the amount can be treated as unexplained expenditure. In the impugned case, the assessee has established the source of the funds, which was accepted by the AO. Failing to furnish the details of expenditure could not be presumed that it was an unexplained expenditure. On going through the paper book filed by the assessee, the assessee has submitted sale deeds, confirmations from SPR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and SPR Publications pvt. Ltd. and other financial statements, we find that the addition made by the AO is not correct and the ld. CIT(A) after considering the documentary evidence filed by the assessee has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the AO. Thus, We uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Deletion of additions claimed by the assessee for purchase of plant & machinery, development expenses, and unexplained expenditure incurred for land purchase.
- Lack of evidence to support claims regarding source of income and utilization of funds.
- Treatment of entire credits in appellant's bank account as income by the Assessing Officer.
- Interpretation of section 69C regarding unexplained expenditure.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal included errors in law and facts related to the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The issues primarily revolved around the claimed amounts for purchase of plant & machinery, development expenses, and unexplained expenditure for land purchase.

2. The appellant, an independent director in a company, received significant amounts deposited in his bank account from group companies. The Assessing Officer treated the entire credits in the appellant's bank account as income, suspecting funds siphoning and lack of evidence for expenditures. The appellant's appeal to CIT(A) emphasized explanations from the companies regarding fund transfers for specific purposes like land acquisition and machinery installation.

3. CIT(A) allowed the appeal, citing explanations provided by the companies for fund transfers and the use of banking channels for transactions. The CIT(A) highlighted that doubts expressed by the Assessing Officer did not negate the explained sources of funds, leading to the deletion of the additions. Legal precedents were referenced to support the decision.

4. The Revenue, aggrieved by CIT(A)'s order, appealed before ITAT. During the hearing, the arguments focused on the lack of documentary evidence for claimed expenditures and unsatisfactory explanations regarding property transactions. The appellant's representative presented a paper book containing relevant documents to support the transactions.

5. ITAT considered the submissions, reviewed the material on record, and analyzed the provisions of section 69C regarding unexplained expenditure. It was noted that the appellant had established the sources of funds, which were accepted by the AO. The lack of details regarding expenditures did not automatically classify them as unexplained. The documentary evidence submitted by the appellant supported the deletion of disallowances made by the AO.

6. Ultimately, ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances, dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the order in favor of the appellant. The judgment was pronounced on 15th September 2021.