MR. PATHAN MOJIAMKHAN OSMANKHAN(LEGAL HEIR: MRS. SIDDIKHA M PATHAN),LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1189/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 December 2023AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted partial evidence and additional evidence before it. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 1.00 crore, with their share of investment being Rs. 28,25,000/-. The assessee did not file a return of income, and the Assessing Officer made an addition for unexplained investment. The assessee attempted to substantiate the source of funds with partial evidence, which was not fully accepted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for unexplained investment was justified, and if the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 139,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh V. Kankani
For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL, VP:

1.

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 27-10-2022 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

This appeal is time barred by about 316 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating the reasons which led to the late filing. I am satisfied with the reasons so stated. Therefore, the delay is condoned and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits.

3.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.28,25,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.69 of the Act.

4.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Mr. Girish Rajkumar Rachatte, Latur for the assessment year under consideration, it transpired that he along with three other persons, including the assessee, had purchased an immovable property situated at Survey No.17, Mauje Kanheri, Taluka Latur admeasuring 12 Acres & 60 Guntas for a total consideration of Rs.1.00 crore, in which all the four persons had equal share. The assessee’s share in the investment towards the purchase of property inclusive of stamp duty and registration fees etc. came to Rs.28,25,000/-. The assessee did not furnish any return of income u/s.139 of the Act. The AO issued notice u/s.148 and required the assessee to substantiate the evidence of source of investment made.

The assessee remained absent, which led to the passing of the ex parte order u/s.144 making addition of Rs.28,25,000/- towards unexplained investment. During the first appellate proceedings, the assessee tried to substantiate the source of Rs.28,25,000/- by claiming that a sum of Rs.8,31,000/- was received from Abdul Razzak Mojamkhan Pathan (Elder son); Rs.5,61,000/- from Shoaib Mojamkhan Pathan (Younger son); Rs.13,00,000/- from Tharav Patra (Advance on 02-11-2010) and Rs.1,33,000/- out of own funds. The assessee submitted partial evidence in support of the transactions. The ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO, who did not concur with the assessee’s submission on all the above four sources of investment. The ld. CIT(A) went with the AO’s information and confirmed the addition.

Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. Admittedly, the assessee submitted partial evidence of sources of the investment, claimed to have obtained from his two sons and the amount received as per Tharav Patra along with cash available. The AO pointed out certain inconsistencies in the dates. The assessee has filed the paper book running into 54 pages.

The first 24 pages were before the AO/CIT(A) and from pages 25 onwards till 54 page are the additional evidence which include bank statements of two bank accounts. It is thus seen that the assessment order was passed ex parte u/s.144 and the assessee could not properly substantiate the genuineness of the source of investment fully during the remand proceedings as well. Further, the assessee has filed certain additional evidence before the Tribunal in support of the genuineness of the source of investment. Considering the totality of facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of the things if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. I order accordingly and direct him to frame the assessment afresh. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to lead evidence in support of his explanation.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th December, 2023.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →