Tribunal adjusts tax additions: Rs. 25,000 & Rs. 2,50,000 deleted, Rs. 2,85,313 upheld

The tribunal partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition of Rs. 25,000 under section 145(3) and the Rs. 2,50,000 addition under section 68 read with section 115BBE. However, the tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 2,85,313 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). The judgment was delivered on July 16, 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,000 and invoking the provision of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,50,000 under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained cash credit/unsecured loan.
3. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,313 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adopting the valuation of property taken by the registering authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustaining the Addition of Rs. 25,000 and Invoking Section 145(3):
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 25,000 and the invocation of section 145(3) by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the rejection of the books of accounts by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to defects such as the absence of a stock register and detailed records of purchases, sales, and stock. Despite the books being audited without adverse remarks, the CIT(A) found the AO's rejection justified. However, the CIT(A) reduced the AO's arbitrary addition from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000, recognizing the better gross profit rate compared to previous years. The tribunal concluded that mere rejection of books does not justify an addition, especially when the declared gross profit was better than in prior years. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 25,000 was deleted.

2. Sustaining the Addition of Rs. 2,50,000 under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 2,50,000 as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, citing the failure to establish the creditworthiness of the creditor, Smt. Santosh Devi Jangir, despite submitting confirmation, ITR, and bank passbook. The AO noted that the creditor's bank account had minimal prior balance, questioning the credibility of the cash deposit. The tribunal found that the creditor's disclosed dairy and agricultural income reasonably explained the cash deposit, satisfying the necessary onus of creditworthiness. The tribunal distinguished the case from others cited by the Revenue and allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 2,50,000.

3. Sustaining the Addition of Rs. 2,85,313 under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii):
The assessee disputed the addition based on the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value of a property. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, noting the assessee's acceptance of the tax liability. The tribunal clarified that the amendment to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) applied from April 1, 2014, covering the assessment year 2014-15. Since the property transaction occurred on November 1, 2013, within the relevant financial year, the provisions were applicable. The tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the appeal on this ground.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the deletion of the Rs. 25,000 addition under section 145(3) and the Rs. 2,50,000 addition under section 68 read with section 115BBE, while sustaining the Rs. 2,85,313 addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). The judgment was pronounced in open court on July 16, 2018.

---