2013 (10) TMI 882 - HC - Income Tax

Court rejects Assessing Officer's additions in reassessment, upholds Commissioner's decision for 2005-06 assessment

The court upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision in favor of the respondent, rejecting the additions made by the Assessing Officer ... Addition on account of 69B of Income Tax Act – Addition after making reference to the 3CD report wherein unsecured loans of Rs.4.6 crores and repayment of Rs.4.52 crores were recorded. The Assessing Officer observed that during the scrutiny proceedings, the respondent-assessee had shown loan amount of Rs.4.25 crores and repayment of Rs.3.32 cores – Held that:- Assessing Officer had made an error in reading the 3CD report and has recorded that the respondent-assessee had actually received Rs.4.35 crores. The amounts were received from E-City Entertainment India (P) Ltd. and Taneja Developers & Infrastructures Ltd. Similarly, with regard to repayment, the details/documents was examined and it was held that the respondent-assessee had paid Rs.4,52,40,721/- to E-City Entertainment India (P) Ltd. and Taneja Developers & Infrastructures Ltd - Departmental representative was not able to demonstrate any factual error – No document has been filed to controvert the above findings – Decided against the Revenue. Issues:1. Addition of Rs.1,69,88,3832. Addition of Rs.1,50,00,000Issue 1: Addition of Rs.1,69,88,383The case involves an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the assessment year 2005-06. The appellant challenges the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal) dated 25th July, 2012. The dispute arises from the reassessment proceedings where the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,69,88,383. This addition was based on the variance between the cost of construction declared by the assessee and the valuation by the valuer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reversed the Assessing Officer's decision, stating that the projected cost of construction should be considered for computing capital gains. The tribunal affirmed this decision, noting that the Revenue could not contradict the findings. The tribunal emphasized that the actual cost incurred on construction must be deducted from the consideration received for taxation purposes. The court found no justification for the addition based on the expenditure incurred by the assessee as of a certain date. The lack of evidence challenging the projected cost further supported the decision in favor of the assessee.Issue 2: Addition of Rs.1,50,00,000The second issue pertains to the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000 under Section 69B of the Act. The Assessing Officer relied on the 3CD report, noting discrepancies in the unsecured loans and repayments declared by the assessee. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) corrected the reading of the 3CD report, establishing that the assessee had received and repaid different amounts than initially assessed. The tribunal upheld this finding, stating that no factual errors were demonstrated by the departmental representative. The lack of evidence challenging the tribunal's decision led to the dismissal of the appeal. The court found no merit in the appeal and ruled in favor of the respondent, concluding that the appeal lacked substance and did not warrant any costs.In summary, the judgment addresses two key issues related to additions made during reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2005-06. The court's detailed analysis of the factual and legal aspects surrounding the disputed additions resulted in a favorable outcome for the respondent, with the tribunal's findings being upheld due to the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claims.