ITAT rules against AO's unjustified Rs. 1 crore addition under Section 69A

The ITAT concluded that the AO's addition of Rs. 1 crore as unexplained money under Section 69A of the IT Act was not justified. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, emphasizing that retracted statements could not be relied upon without further evidence. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's findings were based on suspicion without supporting evidence. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming that the addition of Rs. 1 crore was unjustified.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1 crore as unexplained money under Section 69A of the IT Act, 1961, based on alleged cash payments for booking a flat, was justified.
2. Whether the statements recorded from the CEO and an employee of the builder, which were subsequently retracted, can be relied upon for making the addition.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 1 crore as unexplained money under Section 69A

The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2013-14, declaring a total income of Rs. 12,37,820. During scrutiny, the AO found information from DDIT (Inv.) indicating that the assessee made a cash payment of Rs. 1 crore to M/s Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd. for booking a flat. Statements from the CEO and an employee of Nish Developers admitted receipt of the cash. The AO, relying on these statements, added Rs. 1 crore as unexplained money under Section 69A of the IT Act, 1961.

The AO's findings were based on the fact that the builder did not deny the receipt of cash but stated it was not recorded in their books. The AO concluded that the assessee failed to explain the source of the Rs. 1 crore paid in cash on specific dates and thus added the amount to the assessee's income, initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment.

Issue 2: Reliability of retracted statements

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), arguing that no cash was paid, and the builder denied receiving any cash. The statements from the builder's employee were retracted via an affidavit, and the builder confirmed that all payments were made through banking channels. The CIT(A) observed that the AO did not provide copies of the statements or allow cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) noted that the market value of the flat was less than the purchase price, negating the need for cash payments. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT, which emphasized that retracted statements could not be relied upon without further evidence. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1 crore.

The revenue appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition and that the AO's findings were based on clear facts from the builder's statements. The revenue contended that the retraction was self-serving and lacked credibility.

The ITAT reviewed the case and found that the AO relied solely on the DDIT's information and did not conduct an independent inquiry. The ITAT noted that the assessee provided an agreement showing the flat's value and payments made through banking channels. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's addition was based on suspicion without supporting evidence. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the addition of Rs. 1 crore was unjustified.

Conclusion:

The ITAT concluded that the AO's addition of Rs. 1 crore as unexplained money under Section 69A was not justified, as it was based on retracted statements and lacked independent inquiry or supporting evidence. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

---