Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's wife sold an immovable property for Rs. 22,50,000/-. The assessee claimed this cash was used to purchase another property for Rs. 18,71,000/- within a short span. The lower authorities were not satisfied with the explanation regarding the source of funds.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had prima facie explained the source of the impugned investment. Considering the larger interest of justice, the addition was restricted to a lump sum amount.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities erred in making an unexplained investment addition when the assessee had provided a prima facie explanation for the source of funds?
Sections Cited
147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072503397(1) dated 24.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel representing assessee vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in making unexplained investment addition of Rs.18,71,000/- in the assessee’s hands, in assessment order dated 27.11.2018 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Naresh Kumar 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement rival submissions reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned unexplained investment addition. A perusal of the case file indicates that the assessee’s wife namely Smt. Suneeta Choudhary had infact sold an immovable property on 16.12.2012 for cash consideration of Rs.22,50,000/-; and, therefore, the same very cash payment has been utilized in purchase of the property in question for Rs.18,71,000/- forming subject matter of adjudication vide purchased deed dated 17.08.2012. The assessee’s case accordingly is that the above cash sale price only has been utilized in re-investment thereof within a short span of one month. The assessee has not been able to explain the above facts to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the assessee has prima facie explained the source of the impugned investment, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- in his hands will cover all loopholes in his explanation. Order accordingly. The impugned addition of Rs.18,71,000/- is hereby restricted to a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent.