2025 (5) TMI 435 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69C - undisclosed expenditure incurred in its ongoing project - HELD THAT - Assessee failed to controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A) wherein it is observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the figures mentioned therein are specific to the last Rupee and the other figures are also matching with the books of accounts. We are in agreement with the observations of CIT(A) and find no force in the arguments of assessee that this document is a dumb document. The judgement relied upon by the assessee are on different facts where revenue has failed to corelate the entries with the respective assessee or the figure noted does not represent any transaction. Whereas in the instant case as observed above almost all the figures are matching and are in relation to the projects carried out by the assessee. In view of these facts of the case we confirmed the addition. Decided against assessee. Deprecation on Gym equipments - depreciation claim disallowed by observing that the Gym was not installed at the business premises - HELD THAT - We find that it is not the first year that the depreciation on the Gym equipments was disallowed in the case of the assessee. It is also a matter of fact that no Gym equipments were found installed at the office premises when the search was taken place. Neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A) nor before us assessee could controvert the findings that the Gym equipments were not installed at the office premises. This being so the action of the AO in disallowing the deprecation on Gym equipments is found to be correct which is hereby upheld. Ground No.6 raised by the assessee is thus dismissed. Addition on account of unaccounted sale consideration received by the assessee - HELD THAT - Agreement to Sell executed between the assessee and Shri R.C.Puri stood cancelled and the advance received was refunded through bank. The subject property was finally sold to M/s. Prerna Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. for INR 6.5 crores in FY 2008-09 relevant to AY 2009-10 wherein the loss incurred was duly accepted by the Department. It is also seen that the assessee has filed the cancellation agreement that Shri R.C.Puri had refunded advance amount which was not doubted by the AO nor any further enquiries were made nor any material was brought on record to hold that such cancellation agreement was sham document. Under these circumstances we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions. As a result Ground No.1(i) raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of rent paid on for the property by holding that said premises was never taken by the assessee for business purposes - HELD THAT - Premise in question was occupied by the appellant company for its office. This is a clear evidence that the assessee business premise was situated at this place. The assessee had filed all the necessary evidences such as rent agreement ledger account TDS certificate bank statement and ownership proof in the hands of the landlord. The assessee has claimed depreciation of the assets installed at this premise which has been allowed. Merely for the inadvertent error of not intimating this premises in the reply filed cannot be the sole basis of making disallowance by ignoring ample evidences filed by the assessee. No reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance so made which is hereby upheld. Thus Ground No.1(ii) of the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Addition on account of foreign travel by Directors alongwith their family members - disallowance so made and observed that the travelling was carried out by the Directors and employees of the assessee company to buy the marble from Italy and majority of trips were carried out to Italy - HELD THAT - We find that the AO simply on assumption and presumption basis has made the disallowance. From the details filed during the course of appellate proceedings as additional evidences which are discussed by the CIT(A) it is seen that the assessee has been able to demonstrate that the travelling were carried out for business purposes and ultimately marble was purchased from Italy and brought to India through Italian Freight carriers Vapi Akash Stone Industries Ltd. Silvassa. It is also seen that in addition to the travelling undertaken by the Directors Shri Inder Mohan Thapar Smt. Jaspreet Thapar one Shri Naveen Punjabi who is the employee of the assessee company also visited Italy for making selection of the marble stone etc. Thus it is not a case where pleasure trips were carried out. The Ld.CIT(A) correctly deleted addition. Addition of deemed profit - CIT(A) has deleted the additions made on presumption basis - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has been able to demonstrate the breakup of the total cost claimed and further filed the necessary cancellation agreement which has not been doubted by the AO. Had there been any doubts in the mind of the AO with respect to the consideration received on cancellation agreement he could have make independent enquiries from the other party which has not been done either during the course of assessment proceedings or during the remand proceedings. Further no incriminating material to the effect was found/seized during the course of search. We are in full agreement with the observations made by the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on presumption basis to protect the interest of the Revenue. Addition of advance received from one party - since the assessee has not being able to discharge the burden casted upon it proving the creditworthiness of the parties who had given the advance therefore the addition was made - addition deleted by Ld.CIT(A) - HELD THAT - CIT DR has failed to controvert the findings given by the CIT(A) and further looking to the facts that advance of INR 3 crores is duly mentioned in the Agreement to Sell and amount was received through banking channels and it was advance against the property and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition thus the same is hereby upheld. Ground of the Revenue is thus dismissed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment arise from cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the first appellate order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2008-09. The principal issues include:

1. Whether the assessment framed under section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act was valid and within jurisdiction, particularly in the absence of incriminating documents seized during search.

2. Legitimacy of additions made under section 69C of the Act on account of alleged undisclosed expenditure in a construction project, especially based on seized documents termed as "dumb documents" by the assessee.

3. Validity of disallowance of depreciation claimed on gym equipment installed at the business premises.

4. Legality of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unaccounted sale consideration from property transactions, including the treatment of agreements to sell and cancellation thereof.

5. Whether rent paid for a property claimed as business premises was rightly disallowed when the assessee allegedly did not maintain an office there.

6. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses claimed as business expenditure, particularly trips undertaken by directors and family members.

7. Addition of deemed profits on relinquishment of construction rights, made on a presumptive basis by the AO.

8. Treatment of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act, especially advances received from third parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Validity of Assessment under Section 153A/143(3)

Although the assessee initially challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A/143(3), grounds relating to jurisdiction and natural justice were not pressed before the Tribunal and were dismissed accordingly. The Court did not delve into these issues further, implying acceptance of the assessment's validity for the purposes of the appeals.

Additions under Section 69C Based on Seized Document (Undisclosed Expenditure)

The AO made an addition of INR 25,90,321 under section 69C, treating it as unexplained expenditure incurred in the construction project at A-8, Westend, New Delhi. This was based on a seized loose paper (Annexure A, page 10) found during search, which recorded project costs exceeding those in the books of accounts. The assessee contended that this document was a "dumb document" (i.e., a document without evidentiary value) and did not reflect actual expenditure.

Relevant precedents cited by the assessee included judgments where documents not corroborated by other evidence or not linked to actual transactions were disregarded. However, the Tribunal noted that most figures in the seized document closely matched the books of accounts, including opening balances and costs on other projects, indicating the document's authenticity and connection to the assessee's business.

The CIT(A) observed that the figures were specific and not rounded, undermining the assessee's claim of estimates. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing the assessee's failure to adequately rebut the document's authenticity or explain the discrepancy. The addition was upheld, confirming that unexplained excess expenditure was rightly added as income under section 69C.

Disallowance of Depreciation on Gym Equipment

The AO disallowed depreciation on gym equipment installed at the office premises, noting that during the search, such equipment was not found installed, and prior years' similar disallowances had been upheld. The assessee argued the equipment was used for staff welfare and thus qualified for depreciation as a business expense.

The Tribunal noted the absence of gym equipment at the premises during search and the consistency of prior disallowances. The assessee failed to rebut these findings. Accordingly, the disallowance was upheld, reaffirming the principle that depreciation is allowable only on assets actually used in business premises.

Additions Relating to Property Transactions and Sale Considerations

The Revenue challenged deletions of several additions made by the CIT(A) concerning property sales:

• Addition of INR 5.5 crores on account of unaccounted sale consideration: The AO added this amount based on an agreement to sell property at INR 12 crores, while the assessee declared sale at INR 6.5 crores. The assessee produced a cancellation agreement and evidence of refund of advance payment, which the CIT(A) accepted. The Tribunal found no material to doubt the cancellation or the refund and upheld the deletion of the addition, noting that any income would be taxable in the year of actual sale.
• Addition of INR 56 lakhs disallowing rent paid for property at Vasant Vihar: The AO disallowed rent claiming the premises was not used for business. The assessee produced evidence that the property was indeed used as office premises, including the fact that search proceedings were conducted there and Panchnama drawn. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld this, recognizing that the assessee had sufficiently established business use.
• Addition of INR 6,33,926 on account of foreign travel expenses: The AO disallowed expenses for foreign trips by directors and family members, alleging they were pleasure trips. The assessee demonstrated that trips were made to Italy for procuring marble for construction projects, supported by invoices and evidence of purchase and installation. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence and deleted the addition. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing the commercial expediency and rejecting the AO's assumption-based disallowance.
• Addition of INR 5 crores deemed profit on relinquishment of construction rights: The AO presumed undisclosed income as the assessee relinquished rights for INR 4.5 crores despite incurring costs exceeding INR 4.64 crores. The assessee produced detailed cost breakdowns and cancellation agreements, which were not disputed by the AO. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this deletion, noting the lack of incriminating material and absence of independent inquiries by the AO.
• Addition of INR 3 crores unexplained cash credit under section 68: The AO added this amount received as advance from Shri R.C. Puri, doubting the creditor's identity and creditworthiness. The assessee submitted the agreement to sell, cancellation agreement, and evidence of refund through banking channels. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had accepted the agreement for making another addition and that the amount was received and refunded via account payee cheques, with identity and address details available. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of this addition, emphasizing that the AO failed to make independent inquiries to disprove the creditworthiness.

Treatment of Competing Arguments and Application of Law

The Tribunal consistently applied principles requiring the AO to base additions on concrete evidence rather than presumptions or assumptions. Where the assessee provided credible documentary evidence, including agreements, bank statements, and correspondence, and where no contradictory evidence was found during search or assessment, the Tribunal upheld the deletions made by the CIT(A). Conversely, where the assessee failed to rebut seized documents or failed to establish the business use of assets, additions and disallowances were confirmed.

The judgment reflects the application of the burden of proof principle, requiring the assessee to disprove the authenticity or applicability of seized documents or AO's findings. The Tribunal also emphasized the importance of consistency in treatment of similar issues across assessment years and the necessity of independent inquiries by the AO when doubts arise.

Significant Holdings

On the issue of unexplained expenditure under section 69C, the Tribunal held: "The complete reading of the document, therefore, leads to only one inescapable conclusion that the said expenditure in excess of what has been recorded in the books of accounts is out of income available with the appellant which had not been disclosed."

Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on gym equipment, the Tribunal affirmed: "No Gym equipments were found installed at the office premises when the search was taken place... the action of the AO in disallowing the depreciation on Gym equipments is found to be correct."

On the deletion of additions based on property sale agreements and advances, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of corroborative material and independent inquiry by the AO: "If the AO was not satisfied regarding the creditworthiness of the said party, he should have made enquiries... The facts of the case clearly show that the primary onus cast upon the appellant had been discharged."

The Tribunal also recognized the validity of business expenditure incurred for foreign travel, stating: "The travelling were carried out for business purposes and ultimately marble was purchased from Italy... it is not a case where pleasure trips were carried out."

Finally, the Tribunal underscored that additions on a presumption basis without material are not sustainable: "No incriminating material to the effect was found/seized during the course of search... the addition made on presumption basis to protect the interest of the Revenue is deleted."

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal in their entirety, confirming certain additions and disallowances while deleting others, based on the evidence and legal principles applied.