2014 (7) TMI 1030 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal partially allows appeal, directs further investigation on undisclosed payments, grants relief on cash deposits

Bharat V. Patel Versus Assistant Commissioner Income Tax

Bharat V. Patel Versus Assistant Commissioner Income Tax - TMI Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,01,04,887/- as undisclosed payments to landowners.2. Non-adjudication of certain grounds by CIT(A) regarding cash deposits and investments.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 1,01,04,887/- as Undisclosed Payments to LandownersThe assessee appealed against the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 1,01,04,887/- based on a small diary seized during a search operation. The diary allegedly contained details of cash payments to landowners for the 'Shreeji Bungalows Scheme.' The AO noted that the assessee, a builder and developer, made these payments, and the diary meticulously recorded these transactions. The assessee claimed that these payments were made by Shreeji Narol Owners Association (SNOA) and that he was merely a mediator.The AO, however, was not convinced due to the lack of credible evidence from the assessee to counter the allegations. The AO applied Section 132(4A) of the IT Act, which presumes that documents found in possession during a search are owned by the person unless proven otherwise. The AO concluded that the amount was an undisclosed payment by the assessee and taxed it accordingly.The CIT(A) initially rejected the admission of additional evidence and confirmed the AO's findings. Upon remand by the Tribunal, the CIT(A) reiterated that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence to support his claim of being a mediator and confirmed the addition again.The Tribunal, upon reviewing the case, noted several discrepancies and unanswered questions, such as the exact nature of the bank accounts, the authenticity of the Banakhats (agreements of sale), and the matching of diary entries with SNOA's books. The Tribunal deemed it necessary to restore the issue to the AO for further investigation to verify the claims made by the assessee and to ensure justice.Issue 2: Non-Adjudication of Certain Grounds by CIT(A) Regarding Cash Deposits and InvestmentsGround 5(a): Addition of Rs. 17,05,000/- as Cash Deposits in Bank AccountThe AO noted several cash deposits totaling Rs. 17,05,000/- in the assessee's bank account, which the assessee claimed were from agricultural income. The AO rejected this explanation due to insufficient evidence. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate this ground, stating that there was no direction from the Tribunal regarding this addition.The Tribunal, upon review, found that the assessee had produced bills worth Rs. 3,92,060/- during the assessment proceedings, confirming part of the agricultural income. Therefore, the Tribunal directed to reduce the addition by this amount and confirmed the rest.Ground 5(b): Agricultural Income and Cash Deposits in Regular vs. Block AssessmentThe Tribunal did not find any specific argument or evidence provided by the assessee to support this ground and thus did not address it separately.Ground 5(c): Addition of Rs. 76,000/- as Investment in Shivshakti Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.The AO treated Rs. 76,000/- as an undisclosed investment for obtaining a Visa. The Tribunal held that this amount should be considered an expenditure rather than an investment and directed to delete the addition, as the undisclosed income had already been taxed.Ground 5(d): Addition of Rs. 12,660/- as Returned Income for AY 2001-02The AO included Rs. 12,660/- as undisclosed income in the block period. The Tribunal upheld this addition, stating that such income is required to be taxed under the special provisions of the IT Act.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing further investigation on the main issue of Rs. 1,01,04,887/- and providing partial relief on the other grounds. The case was restored to the AO for a thorough examination of the claims and evidence presented by the assessee.