2018 (1) TMI 1735 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee fails to prove seized materials not income, LTCG deduction under section 54G denied for non-notified area

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11 (3) Versus Geneva Industries Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11 (3) Versus Geneva Industries Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 1,83,00,000 under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act.2. Deduction under Section 54G of the Income-tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Rs. 1,83,00,000 under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act:The Assessing Officer (AO) confronted the assessee with seized material found during the course of survey operations, indicating some undisclosed investment. The Managing Director (MD) of the assessee company denied having made any undisclosed investment. The AO drew an adverse inference from the conduct of the assessee and held that it was an unexplained investment, adding Rs. 1,83,00,000 to the income under Section 69 of the Act.On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, holding that the AO, without bringing any corroborative evidence, cannot make any addition based merely on impounded papers. The CIT(A) relied on certain judicial pronouncements of the Tribunal to arrive at this conclusion.Upon further appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal held that the initial burden of proving is always on the assessee to show that the transactions in loose sheets are not in the nature of income. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (165 ITR 14). The Tribunal concluded that the assessee merely denied the transactions without providing any credible explanation, thus failing to discharge the initial burden. Therefore, the AO was justified in drawing an adverse inference and making the addition of Rs. 1,83,00,000. The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal on this ground.2. Deduction under Section 54G of the Income-tax Act:The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54G of the Act, stating that it shifted the industrial unit from an urban area (Whitefield) to a non-urban area and invested Rs. 19,84,150 towards the purchase of land. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, holding that the investment in new plant and machinery and land satisfies the conditions stipulated under Section 54G of the Act.The revenue appealed, arguing that all four conditions laid down in Section 54G should be satisfied, including the condition that the industrial undertaking must be shifted to a non-urban area. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 54G, which exempts capital gains arising from the transfer of plant and machinery and building used for the purpose of an industrial undertaking situated in an urban area, provided the capital gains are utilized in acquiring new plant and machinery and building in the area to which the undertaking is shifted.The Tribunal noted that the Parliament enacted Section 54G to promote de-congestion of urban areas and balance regional growth. The Tribunal referred to notifications issued by the Central Government declaring certain areas as urban areas for the purposes of Section 54G. It was found that Whitefield is not one of the notified urban areas eligible for deduction under Section 54G. Therefore, the assessee-company failed to satisfy the condition that the unit sold was situated within notified urban areas. Consequently, the assessee-company was not eligible for deduction under Section 54G. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s finding on this issue and allowed the revenue's appeal.Conclusion:- The appeal filed by the revenue was allowed, confirming the addition of Rs. 1,83,00,000 under Section 69 and denying the deduction under Section 54G.- The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, as further relief on the deduction under Section 54G was not allowable.Order Pronounced:The order was pronounced in the open court on 19th January, 2018.