Tribunal rules in favor of assessee in income nature & additions dispute

Income tax Officer, Ward-13 (2) -3, Mumbai Versus M/s. Hotel Derby

Income tax Officer, Ward-13 (2) -3, Mumbai Versus M/s. Hotel Derby - TMI Issues involved:
1. Nature of income received by the assessee from "Hotel Derby" - Business income or income from other sources.
2. Addition of Rs.3,27,500/- under section 68 of the Act.
3. Addition of Rs.13,96,200/- being cash deposit in the current A/c. No.CA/01/800132 in the name of "Hotel Derby" with Corporation Bank, Ulhasnagar Branch.

Issue 1: Nature of income from "Hotel Derby"
The dispute revolved around the nature of income received by the assessee from "Hotel Derby." The AO treated the royalty income as income from other sources, considering it as payment received for letting out the hotel premises. The assessee contended that the income arose from the commercial exploitation of assets and should be considered as business income. CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the income resulted from the commercial exploitation of assets owned by the assessee, supporting the claim of business income.

Issue 2: Addition under section 68 of the Act
The AO added Rs.3,27,500/- under section 68 of the Act due to a cash deposit in the assessee's bank account, questioning the nexus between cash withdrawals and deposits. The assessee explained that the amount was introduced by a partner towards his capital, with withdrawals and deposits duly recorded in the partner's books of account. CIT(A) accepted the explanation, noting the partner's regular tax assessments and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the cash withdrawals and deposits were accounted for, and the partner's tax compliance supported the explanation.

Issue 3: Cash deposit in the current A/c. of "Hotel Derby"
The AO added Rs.13,96,200/- as unexplained income due to cash deposit in the current account of "Hotel Derby." The assessee clarified that the account was managed by another party under a conducting agreement and was duly reflected in the balance sheet. CIT(A) found the account details submitted by the party and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, highlighting that the account was disclosed in the balance sheet, and the managing party was regularly assessed to tax, indicating no grounds for the addition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions of CIT(A) in all three disputes, emphasizing the proper consideration of facts, explanations provided, and supporting evidence presented in each case.