2021 (10) TMI 569 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Delhi affirms CIT(A)'s decision, dismisses Revenue's appeal on unsubstantiated additions (A)

The ITAT Delhi upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding them unsubstantiated and lacking a proper ... Income from house property - Estimation of ALV of two properties - assessee has paid house tax - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer without any basis, estimated the annual letting value of the said properties. The said properties were not let out during the present Assessment Year. As those properties were not in habitable conditions and no tenant was found in respect of those properties. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Unexplained credits - loan was taken from the daughter of the assessee and the assessee has not given any details relating to the amount - AR submitted that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction with regard to the amounts credited as loan from assessee’s daughter have been proved as Ms. Asima Gupta has disclosed the particulars regarding long term capital gain earned by her - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has observed that the Assessing Officer has mislead the facts as only an amount of ₹ 61,36,000/- had been received as loan during the year under consideration from Ms. Asima Gupta. The evidences shown before the Assessing Officer has established the genuineness of the transaction and details related to the origin of the sales of the shares were also before the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the sources of credit in the lenders bank account are directly related to the purchase of shares and the same was also placed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition Disallowance of interest - assessee has given loan without any interest to her spouse - AO charged the interest on the said additions at the rate of 12% - AR submitted that the assessee has not received any interest on the said advance/loan to her husband and the Assessing Officer has presumed the notional interest which was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- AO has presumed the notional interest at the rate of 12% without any basis. The Assessing Officer merely on surmises and conjunctures observed that the advance was interest bound and not interest free. The assessee has given an advance to her husband without charging any interest. Thus, it is rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Unexplained sale / purchase of shares - DR submitted that the assessee has sold shares of MOIL at a consideration of ₹ 16,91,903/- against purchase of ₹ 21,05,075/- without any documentary evidence in respect of purchase and sale - CIT(A) has deleted this addition only on the ground that the details were there before the CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has gone through the details which were very much before the Assessing Officer and after going through the same has deleted this addition. The purchase of shares as well as the sales of the said shares were through recognized stock exchange and is supported by the broker note and the details thereof. Thus, the transactions were genuine and the CIT(A) rightly deleted this addition. Unexplained credits u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- All the records were before the Assessing Officer and there is a single sentence in the assessment order stating that the assessee has not given any evidence. But, the assessee’s reply along with Annexure-13 dated 27/2/2015 was before the Assessing Officer which has explained the nature of the transaction and the advance given by Nina Bhartia. Hence, the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was established by the assessee. The CIT(A) has rightly given finding that the transaction was genuine and deleted the addition. Appeal decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Addition of ALV of two properties2. Addition of unexplained credits3. Disallowance of interest4. Addition of unexplained sale/purchase of shares5. Addition of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 19616. Allegation of lack of independent verification by CIT(A)7. Admission of fresh evidence without opportunity to AOAnalysis:1. Addition of ALV of two properties:The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of ALV of two properties by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer estimated the ALV without proper basis. The properties were not let out, not habitable, and had no tenants. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as there was no basis for the estimation by the Assessing Officer.2. Addition of unexplained credits:The Revenue contested the deletion of the addition of unexplained credits. The loan taken from the daughter of the assessee was under scrutiny. The CIT(A) found the transaction genuine based on evidence provided, including details of the source of the credited amount. The CIT(A) correctly deleted this addition as the genuineness of the transaction was established.3. Disallowance of interest:The Revenue objected to the deletion of disallowance of interest by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer charged interest on an advance to the spouse without any basis. The CIT(A) rightly deleted this addition as there was no evidence to support the presumption of notional interest.4. Addition of unexplained sale/purchase of shares:The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition related to unexplained sale/purchase of shares. The CIT(A) found the transactions genuine based on evidence before the Assessing Officer. The purchases and sales were through recognized stock exchanges with supporting documentation. The CIT(A) correctly deleted this addition.5. Addition of unexplained credits u/s 68:The Revenue disputed the deletion of the addition of unexplained credits under section 68. The CIT(A) found the transaction genuine based on evidence provided during assessment proceedings. The onus of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness was established by the assessee. The CIT(A) rightly deleted this addition.6. Allegation of lack of independent verification by CIT(A):The Revenue alleged that the CIT(A) failed to independently verify facts and admitted additional evidence without allowing an opportunity to the AO. However, the CIT(A) made decisions based on the evidence before it and correctly applied the law.7. Admission of fresh evidence without opportunity to AO:The Revenue raised concerns about the admission of fresh evidence without giving an opportunity to the AO. The CIT(A) considered the evidence presented during the appeal process and made decisions based on the merits of the case.In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding them unsubstantiated and lacking a proper basis. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings on the various issues raised.