2013 (7) TMI 942 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of unexplained/unaccounted expenditure in construction of residential premises.
2. Addition on account of unexplained investment in construction of a residential bungalow.
3. Treatment of long-term capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act.
4. Addition on account of alleged commission expenditure for arranging bogus long-term capital gain.

Summary:

1. Addition on account of unexplained/unaccounted expenditure in construction of residential premises:

The solitary dispute in ITA No. 516/PN/2012 pertains to an addition of Rs. 1,53,057/- made on account of unexplained/unaccounted expenditure in construction of residential premises. The Assessing Officer (AO) referred the valuation of the bungalow to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), who valued the investment at Rs. 66,62,000/-. The difference in the value of investments was distributed over the assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. The CIT(A) upheld the addition. The ITAT found that incriminating material was seized showing unrecorded expenses, justifying the AO's referral to the DVO. However, the ITAT directed to reduce the DVO's estimated value by 5% for self-supervision and re-compute the addition accordingly.

2. Addition on account of unexplained investment in construction of a residential bungalow:

In ITA No. 522/PN/2012, the issue involved an addition of Rs. 7,41,644/- on account of unexplained investment in construction of a bungalow. The AO distributed the difference in valuation over the relevant years. The CIT(A) upheld the addition. The ITAT found no incriminating material showing unrecorded investment and held that the AO's addition based solely on the DVO's report was unjustified. The ITAT directed the deletion of the addition.

3. Treatment of long-term capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act:

In ITA No. 520/PN/2012, the issue was the treatment of long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,17,47,571/- on the sale of shares of 'Fast Track Entertainment Ltd.' (FTEL), claimed as exempt u/s 10(38). The AO treated the sale proceeds as income from other sources, alleging the transactions were sham. The CIT(A) held the sale proceeds were capital gains but treated them as short-term. The ITAT found credible evidence showing the shares were held from a date prior to 11.02.2004, thus qualifying the gain as long-term and eligible for exemption u/s 10(38). The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the proceeds as capital gains but classified them as long-term.

4. Addition on account of alleged commission expenditure for arranging bogus long-term capital gain:

The AO made an addition of Rs. 7,20,359/- estimating commission expenditure for arranging bogus long-term capital gain. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, which was upheld by the ITAT, as the sale proceeds were treated as capital gains.

Mutatis-mutandis Application:

The ITAT's decisions in ITA No. 516/PN/2012 and ITA No. 520/PN/2012 were applied mutatis-mutandis to similar issues in the appeals of other family members, resulting in partial or full allowance of their appeals accordingly.

Conclusion:

The ITAT disposed of the captioned appeals, allowing some and dismissing others based on the detailed examination of evidence and legal principles.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th July, 2013.

← Previous Next →