PLATINUM COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIRCLE-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 10/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 December 2016AY 2008-20094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the land purchase disallowance and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a cash flow statement to support its claim that cash payments were covered by bank withdrawals.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 25,68,000/- to the assessee's income for unexplained investment in land due to cash payment. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, stating the assessee failed to correlate cash withdrawals with cash payments for land purchase.

What were the issues?

Whether cash payments for land purchase are to be treated as unexplained investment when the assessee claims they are covered by cash withdrawals from bank accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM ]

This is an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-Central- I, Kolkata dated 29.11.2013 for AY 2008-09.

2.

Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication and stands dismissed.

3.

Ground No.2 is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.26,35,000/- in respect of land purchase.

4.

The brief facts of the case is that the AO observed during the scrutiny assessment that the assessee company has made cash payment of Rs.25,68,000/- for purchase of land which was added back as unexplained investment because the assessee has made cash payment for purchasing the land. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the same. Aggrieved the assessee is before us.

2 Platinum Commerce Pvt.Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We take note that the AO has made the addition of Rs.25,68,000/- since the company has made cash payments to purchase the land. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same by stating “ though it was claimed that the cash payments were covered by the cash withdrawals from the bank account, the same could not be correlated as no cash flow statement was filed.” In the light of the aforesaid fact, the ld. CIT(A) could not accept the contentions of the assessee and therefore he confirmed the addition of Rs.25,68,000/-. Before us the ld. AR took our attention to page-7 of the paper book which is the cash book of the assessee from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. The ld. AR took our attention to the debit of Rs.5,00,000/- on 13.04.2007 and of Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.05.2007 and thereafter another Rs.5,00,000/- debit on 07.11.2007 and thereafter he took our attention to the cash book entry on 07.11.2007 itself wherein there are two entries for land wherein credit of Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.84,000/- has been made. Thereafter he took our attention to the entry on 08.11.2007 wherein a debit of Rs,4,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- has been made from the account of ABN Amro bank and on 20.11.2007 for land Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.84,000/- has been credited. Thus according to the ld AR a sum of Rs.25,68,000/- has been withdrawn from the bank account of the assessee and thereafter payment were made for purchase of land. In the light of the aforesaid facts that have been brought to our notice by the ld. AR and in the light of the reason recorded by the ld. CIT(A) to reject the contention of the assessee, we are inclined to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the assessee to file the cash flow statement in support of its submissions that cash payments were covered by cash withdrawals from its own bank account. The ld.CIT(A) to de novo adjudicate this issue after satisfying himself after perusal of the cash flow statement and in accordance to law decide.

3 Platinum Commerce Pvt.Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 6. The next issue is regarding the addition of Rs.67,000/- which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) towards purchase of building. Nothing has been brought to our notice by the ld. AR to warrant our interference. Therefore we confirm the same.

7.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 30.12.2016.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →