2015 (12) TMI 705 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decisions on Undisclosed Income

Income-tax Officer, Wd-2 (2), Durgapur Versus Nirmal Kr. Glhosh

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete additions related to undisclosed investment, undisclosed purchase, and income from other sources. The ... Addition made on the ground of undisclosed investment u/s. 69 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We find that this deposit of security was made by assessee ten years’ back and this fact has been admitted by AO as well as CIT(A). Once the deposit is not made in the relevant assessment year, the same cannot be added. The deposit can be added only in the year when it first time introduced. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition. - Decided against revenue Addition made on the ground of undisclosed purchase - AO made addition only for the reason that in the P&L Account purchases of gold bar of 24 Kt. is not reflected and in the absence of such purchases of gold bar from Senco Gold, gold bar of 24 Kt. in stock is not feasible - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The assessee accepts old gold ornaments from customers and adjusted the same with purchase bills. Actually bills are raised only in the net quantity of gold items sold to customers. Hence, stock of gold ornaments is automatically adjusted with respect to quantity of gold lying with the assessee, and hence, entire stock is not readily sellable to customers as it includes old gold ornaments. This stock of old gold ornaments was given to Senco Gold, Kolkata for adjustment with purchases of fresh ornaments from Senco Gold make. In this way, Senco Gold, Kolkata accepted old gold ornaments from assessee but customers while adjusting old gold ornaments with their new purchases would not only give the ornaments of Senco Gold but also of other parties. Finally, assessee has to convert this old gold ornaments of other make into 24 Kt. gold of Senco Gold except the same is converting to 22 Kt. of gold ornaments to 24 Kt. of gold has no financial implication and the same is shown as purchases. Accordingly, the entire undisclosed purchases are nothing but return of goods which was converted into 24 Kt. standard gold bars supplied to the assessee by the franchiser. In view of the above discussion and facts of the case, we are inclined to accept the contention of the assessee and hence, the order of CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed.- Decided against revenue Addition made on the ground of income from other sources - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:-Originally, the assessee declared these amounts to be received in cash as per old ledger register. Subsequently, the assessee filed new ledger account and explained that the advance nearly 90% are received through account payee cheques and other are in cash. Ld. Counsel for the assessee admitted that this is unintentional mistake in showing all the transactions in cash and this mistake has occurred due to copy paste in computer. The assessee before the AO offered that the advances received through bank can be examined from bank statement and other details. He filed complete details before the AO but the AO has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and added entire advance of ₹ 22,86,958/- which were outstanding as on 31.03.2009. We find that the assessee before the lower authorities filed complete details in respect of advances received by cheques and cash. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition - Decided against revenue Issues:1. Addition made on the ground of undisclosed investment u/s. 69 of the Income-tax Act.2. Addition made on the ground of undisclosed purchase.3. Addition made on the ground of income from other sources.Issue 1: Undisclosed Investment u/s. 69 of the ActThe first issue pertains to the addition made on the ground of undisclosed investment u/s. 69 of the Income-tax Act. The AO observed a security deposit discrepancy in the Balance Sheet, treating the balance amount as undisclosed investment. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the deposit was made ten years back and the AO failed to dispute this fact. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the deposit was not made in the relevant assessment year, thus confirming the deletion of the addition.Issue 2: Undisclosed PurchaseThe second issue involves the addition made on the ground of undisclosed purchase. The AO added an amount as undisclosed purchases, which the CIT(A) later deleted. The Tribunal noted that the purchases were actually returns of goods, not undisclosed purchases, as the AO failed to establish any investment from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal accepted the explanation provided by the assessee, confirming the deletion of the addition.Issue 3: Income from Other SourcesThe third issue concerns the addition made on the ground of income from other sources. The AO added advances received from customers that did not appear in the revised ledger. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, highlighting that the AO summarily rejected the corrected figures without substantial evidence against the appellant's explanation. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that most advances were received by cheque, and confirmed the deletion of the addition.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete the additions related to undisclosed investment, undisclosed purchase, and income from other sources. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all evidence and explanations provided by the assessee before making additions based on incomplete or inaccurate data.