2018 (2) TMI 1815 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds deletion of unexplained investments under Section 68 of Income Tax Act

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) - 1 Versus M/s Adamine Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) - 1 Versus M/s Adamine Construction Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Re-assessment based on search conducted in the premises of a third party.2. Addition of unexplained investment under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Deletion of amounts brought to tax under Section 68 by CIT(A) and ITAT.4. Lack of relevant enquiry by Assessing Officer.5. Upholding of deletion of additions by lower appellate authorities.6. Consideration of materials by the Court.7. Failure of AO to make necessary further enquiries.8. Discharge of onus by the assessee.9. Dismissal of the appeal.The High Court dealt with a case where the Assessing Officer issued re-assessment and added a substantial amount as unexplained investment under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a search conducted in the premises of a third party. The amounts in question were received from seven entities, prompting the AO to seek reports from the Commissioner in Mumbai and Kolkata. However, both the CIT(A) and the ITAT deleted the amounts brought to tax under Section 68, emphasizing the lack of relevant enquiry based on the materials provided by the assessee.The Court noted that the search at the Bhushan Steel Group's premises led to surveys at various other assessees, including M/s Adamine Construction Pvt. Ltd., where similar additions were made and subsequently deleted by the lower appellate authorities. The Court upheld the deletion of additions for the same assessee in an earlier assessment, emphasizing the importance of considering materials provided. It was observed that the AO relied solely on received reports without conducting necessary further enquiries, such as examining bank accounts or other relevant particulars, which were crucial for a comprehensive assessment.Highlighting the failure of the AO to delve deeper into the provided details, the Court emphasized that the findings based solely on the initial report could not be considered as primary material for taxation purposes. The assessee had fulfilled the initial onus by providing basic details, which, unfortunately, were not adequately investigated by the AO. Consequently, the Court found no question of law arising from the case and dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower appellate authorities in deleting the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.---