Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 201 - AT - Income TaxCharacterization of income - Unexplained investment u/s 69/69A or business income - HELD THAT:-Income duly declared in the ITR filed u/s 139 which includes ₹ 475,000/ under appeal before the Bench. However, the only dispute is with regard to treating the same as unexplained money or unexplained investment u/s 69/69A by lower authorities and accordingly taxing the same under special rates of income or regular business income as offered by assessee. The provisions of Section 69 or 69A are not applicable in the facts of the case as far as the question of income from property transaction is concerned, which is in the nature of nature of business income as assessee is duly engaged in the business of real estate only. Even otherwise, the provisions of section 69 or 69A are applicable in case of unrecorded transaction or investment, whose nature and source is not explained. However, in the present case, the assessee has duly explained the nature and source of the transaction as well duly declared the same in its return of income. CIT(A) did not appreciate the submission made by assessee during assessment as well as appellate proceedings, which establishes that there is no case of any unexplained investment, money or income, as nature and source of the income is reflected and explained in the ITR filed, Balance sheet and profit & loss account, itself, therefore, question of any income from any undisclosed source does not arise. We direct the A.O. to treat the income of ₹ 4.75 lacs as income from business. Addition u/s 69 - addition relying upon the statements recorded under section 132(4) - HELD THAT:- assessee in its question to answer no. 13 stated that amount of cash short noticed were withdrawn from banks and savings out of income offered for tax and has been used for construction. This explanation even if considered to be true also explains the availability of source of funds. Thus, the source of construction was out of the declared income/sources and there was no additional or unexplained investment as no evidences relating to additional construction investment were found during search. There is no addition in the impugned assessment order on account of short cash found rather during assessment proceedings, the AO took entirely different stand of making impugned addition of ₹ 1 Crore for alleged investment of ₹ 1 crore by taking incorrect inference from the statement of the assessee recorded during search. No document/paper were found by the department in relation to alleged amount of ₹ 1 Crore used in construction activities which is unexplained. Furthermore the assessee has never admitted that he has incurred construction expenses out of books as alleged in the assessment order. It is also clear from the order of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A) that they have never asked for any valuation report. Even otherwise, once there are no adverse findings in relation to the details of cost incurred in relation to construction provided, there is no necessity of valuation. Thus, very basis of impugned addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. There is no adverse finding pointed out by the AO which establishes that there was no source of such investment, further no defects/mistakes were pointed out regarding the supporting evidences submitted by the assessee. Assessee made statement during the search and surrendered ₹ 100,00,000/ which is without any basis due to incomplete records, mistaken facts and believes. The department has not found any single evidence in relation to amount spent more than amount declared in construction activities before the A.O. and produced books of accounts before the AO, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn in this regard. In view of the above discussion, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition so made. Assessment u/s 153A - deduction of interest expenditure disallowed - HELD THAT:- A.O. has accepted the additional interest income offered without any seized documents during the course of search in the return filed u/s 153 A in para 5 of the assessment order but not allowed the legitimate deduction towards interest expenses wrongly short claimed while filing ITR u/s 139. The A.O. has rejected the claim of interest on unsecured loan with contention in Para no 5.3 at page no 3 of the order. We modify the orders of the lower authorit ies and direct the A.O. to restrict addition only to the extent of dif ference between the interest income offered and the interest expenses claimed. We direct accordingly.
|