Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions, revenue's appeal dismissed. Funds traceable, exemption granted, valid assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The deletion of the addition for undisclosed investment was justified as the funds were traceable, no violation of Rule 46A occurred, the exemption of the principal sum in mutual funds was allowed, and assessment below the returned income with a refund was deemed valid. The order was pronounced on 14.05.2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of undisclosed investment in Fixed Deposits (FD).
2. Alleged violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
3. Allowance of exemption regarding the principal sum of investment in mutual funds.
4. Assessment below the returned income and refund of admitted tax without a revised return of income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Undisclosed Investment in FD:
The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 44,81,738/- added as undisclosed investment. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted a discrepancy between the FD amount in the balance sheet (Rs. 3,31,83,887/-) and the ITS details (Rs. 3,76,65,625/-). The assessee claimed the discrepancy was due to an inadvertent error by her accountant and submitted a revised balance sheet. The AO added the differential amount as undisclosed income. However, the assessee demonstrated that the increase in FD was covered by her savings account balance from the previous year. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the increase in FD was not undisclosed income, as the funds were traceable to the savings account.

2. Alleged Violation of Rule 46A:
The revenue claimed that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by accepting additional evidence (revised balance sheet). However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the AO, who provided his report dated 02.12.2015. Hence, there was no violation of Rule 46A, and this ground of appeal was dismissed.

3. Allowance of Exemption Regarding Principal Sum of Investment in Mutual Funds:
The assessee inherited UTI Mutual Funds worth Rs. 21,88,300/- and offered the entire redemption value (Rs. 22,63,639/-) to tax instead of only the profit (Rs. 2,63,639/-). The CIT(A) allowed the exemption of the principal sum, directing the AO to tax only the profit. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that only the correct taxable amount should be assessed.

4. Assessment Below the Returned Income and Refund of Admitted Tax:
The revenue argued that the assessment should not be below the returned income and that tax admitted in the return should not be refunded without a revised return. The Tribunal referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT Vs Milton Laminates Ltd, which allowed assessment below the returned income. The legislative history of Section 143(3) was discussed, noting that the AO is empowered to determine the sum payable or refundable. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s direction, even if resulting in a refund, was valid as per law. The Tribunal also cited the CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955, highlighting the duty of officers to assist taxpayers in claiming refunds and reliefs.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The deletion of the addition for undisclosed investment, the handling of additional evidence under Rule 46A, the exemption of the principal sum in mutual funds, and the assessment below the returned income were all affirmed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 14.05.2018.

---