The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench dealt with a complex case involving the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle, Karnal, and Trishla Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., concerning unexplained credits and a contentious buyback scheme during the assessment year 2012-13.
The case originated from the reassessment proceedings against Trishla Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. based on discrepancies noted during a search and survey operation on a group connected to the assessee. This led to questioning the genuineness of transactions involving large sums purportedly for the buyback of flats and other questionable credits.
The primary issues revolved around the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the genuineness of payments made for a flat buyback arrangement not claimed as expenditures, and the appropriateness of credits labeled as unexplained.
The dispute included whether the reopening of the assessment by the AO under section 148 was justified. The AO had initiated reassessment based on findings from a survey, suggesting that transactions recorded were for accommodating unexplained money.
The second major contention was the addition of Rs.1,75,00,000 as unexplained credits. The credits were related to payments made under a buyback scheme which was not initially disclosed properly in the tax filings and thus were considered suspicious by the authorities.
The ITAT analyzed both the procedural and substantive aspects of the case. It noted procedural flaws in the reassessment proceedings and found that the evidence provided was insufficient to support the claim of unexplained credits. Regarding the buyback scheme, the ITAT noted that although the transactions were unusually structured, the assessee provided enough evidence to substantiate the business reasons behind them.
The ITAT’s decision highlighted the importance of maintaining proper documentation and transparency in financial transactions, especially in complex real estate dealings. It also underscored the necessity for tax authorities to base reassessment decisions on concrete evidence rather than assumptions. The ruling favored the assessee, leading to the deletion of the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A).
DCIT vs. Trishla Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.: Unexplained Credits and Buyback Scheme for AY 2012-13
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform