2012 (12) TMI 1262 - AT - Income Tax

Balance sale liability and credits for immovable asset purchase, depreciation, and repair claims-most additions deleted; late dues disallowed.

Addition for 'unexplained sundry creditors' arising from balance sale consideration for an immovable asset was unsustainable because the liability was ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the addition of a balance shown as sundry creditor relating to purchase of an immovable property could be sustained as 'unexplained sundry creditors' in the relevant assessment year, in the absence of a finding of bogus liability or of conditions attracting section 68/69, and where the liability arose from a recorded purchase transaction. (ii) Whether depreciation on the cinema hall forming part of the assessee's audited fixed assets and stated to be owned and put to use could be disallowed on the basis that the related income was allegedly shown on an estimated basis or that no separate records were maintained. (iii) Whether repairs expenditure relating to lodging/boarding house income could be disallowed on the ground that the lodging income was considered 'estimated', despite repairs having been carried out and the property being held from earlier years. (iv) Whether disallowance of statutory liabilities remaining unpaid beyond the due date for filing the return was to be sustained. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (i) Addition for 'unexplained sundry creditors' (balance payable on purchase) Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal): The Court examined that additions of this nature can arise only under provisions like section 68 (cash credit) or section 69 (unexplained investment), and that mere description as 'unexplained sundry creditors' is not by itself a statutory basis. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a finding that the asset was created out of bogus liability/unaccounted funds or that conditions for section 68/69 were met. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treated the purchase and capitalization of the cinema hall as an undisputed, recorded transaction in the books, supported by audited accounts. It reasoned that the existence of a payable balance arising from a purchase transaction, without a specific finding that the liability was bogus or that any unexplained cash credit/investment existed in the relevant year, could not be converted into taxable 'unexplained credit'. The Tribunal also held that reliance on the registered sale deed's narration, without proper cross-verification capable of establishing an actual unexplained cash payment, could not justify treating the recorded liability as bogus; it noted that the seller's later 'misstatement'/rectification could not be treated as conclusive against the assessee. The Tribunal further found that the Assessing Officer had not demonstrated how the disputed balance constituted a taxable item in the year under appeal. Conclusion: The addition on account of 'unexplained sundry creditors' was directed to be deleted. (ii) Disallowance of depreciation on cinema hall Legal framework (as applied by the Tribunal): The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that depreciation is a statutory charge on an asset, allowable when the asset is owned and put to use, and that its allowability does not depend upon whether income from that asset is 'estimated' or whether such income exceeds depreciation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the cinema hall was capitalized in the fixed asset schedule, the accounts were audited, and the asset was stated to be in the assessee's possession and put to use for earning income. It rejected the approach of denying depreciation because the income from the cinema hall was treated as estimated or because of perceived inadequacy of separate record-keeping. It emphasized that once the asset is part of gross block and is owned/used, depreciation follows under the Act, and cannot be denied merely due to the manner in which related income is computed. Conclusion: The disallowance of depreciation was set aside and deletion was directed. (iii) Disallowance of repairs expenditure relating to lodging/boarding house Legal framework (as discussed/applied): The Tribunal considered that income from lodging/house property has statutory treatment, including allowance connected with repairs/maintenance, and that where repairs are shown to have been carried out, denial merely because income is considered 'estimated' is not justified on the reasoning adopted by the authorities below. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the lodging/boarding house was an existing asset held from earlier years and that specific repairs were carried out. It found the Assessing Officer's reasoning inadequate in disallowing the repairs solely on the premise that the income was estimated, particularly when the income itself was not disturbed and the claim was not rejected on the basis of any clear defect or failure of onus regarding the nature of repairs. Conclusion: The disallowance of repairs expenditure was directed to be deleted. (iv) Disallowance of unpaid statutory liabilities (section 43B-type disallowance) Legal framework (as applied): The Tribunal applied the principle that statutory liabilities paid beyond the due date of filing the return are not allowable and are to be disallowed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal recorded that the assessee did not press this issue and that the liability had been paid beyond the due date for filing the return; consequently, the disallowance was sustained. Conclusion: The addition/disallowance relating to unpaid statutory liabilities was upheld.