2021 (11) TMI 530 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rulings stress precise computation, compliance in reassessment

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1 (1), Hyderabad. Versus Sri Alluri Krishna Reddy, Hyderabad. And Sri Alluri Krishna Reddy, Hyderabad. Versus DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Hyderabad.

The tribunal partly allowed Revenue's appeal ITA No.902/Hyd/2015, dismissed Revenue's appeal ITA No.1002/Hyd/2016 due to low tax effect, partly accepted ... Assessment u/s 153A - unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- As the impugned addition is very much based on the alleged incriminating material in annexure AKR/R/PO/01 (Pages 119 to 121) found and seized during the course of search sufficiently indicating the unexplained investment which carries presumption of correctness u/s 292C - CIT-DR has rightly pinpointed before us while referring to the assessee’s corresponding explanation before the Assessing Officer extracted in the preceding paras that he sought to shift the onus on the department despite the fact that the major component herein was claimed to be ₹ 1,50,000/- only. We thus, uphold both the learned lower authorities impugned action to this effect. CIT(A)’s directions to AO to initiate Section 147 proceedings - HELD THAT:- The same are found to be against the law since Section 153A is a specific provision applicable in case of search action initiated u/s.132 of the Act. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation adding the impugned sum(s) of un-explained investment in the corresponding assessment year as per the entries in the seized material. The assessee fails in its instant grievances therefore. Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing Cross Objection.2. Legality of Section 153A proceedings without incriminating material.3. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(i)(iii).4. Disallowance of labor charges.5. Addition of unexplained investment.6. Directions for initiation of Section 147 proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in filing Cross Objection:The assessee's Cross Objection No.64/Hyd/2016 suffered from an 82-day delay. The delay was attributed to reasons beyond the assessee's control. The Revenue did not rebut this claim, and thus, the delay was condoned.2. Legality of Section 153A proceedings without incriminating material:The assessee argued that no incriminating material was found during the search to trigger Section 153A proceedings. However, the tribunal noted that incriminating material was indeed found, specifically Annexure AKR/R/PO/01, which indicated cash payments and other investments. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 153A were held to be rightly initiated.3. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(i)(iii):The Revenue challenged the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 86,34,421/-. The CIT(A) had upheld the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 1.14 crore, which was considered non-business related. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance, considering the assessee's non-interest and interest-bearing funds and the fund position on the date of advances. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in principle but allowed the assessee's grounds for statistical purposes.4. Disallowance of labor charges:The Revenue sought to revive the disallowance of labor charges amounting to Rs. 2.85 crore. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance, noting that the liability was subsequently discharged and that no evidence suggested the expenditure was non-genuine. The tribunal found that a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 60 lakhs would be just and proper, considering the real estate development context. This disallowance was not to be treated as a precedent.5. Addition of unexplained investment:The addition of Rs. 1,80,12,096/- was based on the seized material indicating unexplained investments. The assessee claimed that an entry of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was a mistake and should have been Rs. 1,50,000/-. The tribunal upheld the addition, noting the presumption of correctness under Section 292C and the lack of satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The CIT(A)'s direction to ascertain the quantum of expenditure pertaining to the assessment year under consideration was also upheld.6. Directions for initiation of Section 147 proceedings:The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to initiate Section 147 proceedings for the expenditure pertaining to other assessment years. The tribunal found this direction to be against the law, as Section 153A is specific to search actions. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to add the unexplained investment in the corresponding assessment year as per the seized material entries.Conclusion:- Revenue's appeal ITA No.902/Hyd/2015 was partly allowed.- Revenue's appeal ITA No.1002/Hyd/2016 was dismissed due to low tax effect.- Assessee's cross appeal No.927/Hyd/2015 was partly accepted for statistical purposes.- Assessee's cross objection C.O.No.64/Hyd/2016 was dismissed as infructuous.- The tribunal emphasized the need for accurate computation and adherence to legal provisions in reassessment and disallowance matters.