Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2016-17, arguing that the CIT(A) erred by not allowing the AO to examine additional evidence. The assessee had purchased two properties for Rs. 5,95,00,000/-, and the AO added this entire amount to the assessee's income as the source of payment was not sufficiently verified.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence under Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, including loan sanction letters and bank statements, to substantiate the source of funds for the property purchases, and these were available to the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A(3) and if the AO was wrongly denied the opportunity to examine it.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 46A(3), 69, 142(1), 250, 122(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“i. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the submissions made by the assessee during appellate proceedings were in the nature of additional evidences and therefore erred in not allowing the AO to examine the additional evidence admitted by them as per the provisions u/s 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. ii. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. iii. The appellant craves have to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if considered necessary.”
Bharat Mithalal Jain A.Y. 2016-17 2. The solitary issue in the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is that ld. CIT(A) has not allowed the assessing officer to examine the additional evidences admitted under the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was finalized in the case of the assessee on 29.03.2022. The assessing officer has noticed that assessee has purchased two properties with following description during the year:
Sl. No. Property Address Consideration Price 1 Plot noo 48 A Vidyut Nagar-B, Rs. 3,90,00,000/- Ajmer Road, Jaipur 2 Plot no 1 Vidyut Nagar-B, Rs. 2,05,00,000/- Ajmer Road, Jaipur Total Rs. 5,95,00,000/-
The AO stated that assessee failed to submit complete bank statement to verify the source of payment made for purchasing the aforesaid properties therefore, the whole amount of Rs. 5,95,00,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act.
The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the source of the payment along with copies of bank statement etc. were duly filed before the assessing officer.
Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel has filed copies of documents and details filed before the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings as Bharat Mithalal Jain A.Y. 2016-17 placed at page no. 5 to 155 of the paper book relating to purchasing of the two properties. The copies of sanction letter of loan amount of Rs. 4,46,25,000/- obtained from bank of Maharashtra later on transferred to Punjab National Bank and also about the amount of Rs. 1,88,45,000/- withdrawn from the capital account of the assessee in M/s. Sonam Builders wherein assessee was partner having 40% share were filed. The detail of submission filed by the assessee in response to the various notices issued by the assessing officer u/s 142(1) of the Act has been also reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in the order passed u/s 250 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) in his finding at page 14 of his order has also reproduced the copy of the housing loan sanctioned by the Bank of Maharashtra to the assessee on 09.02.2016 to the amount of Rs. 4,46,25,000/- and also reproduced the copy of sanction letter from the PNB dated 13.06.2017 which was transferred from Bank of Maharashtra to PNB. The ld. CIT(A) at page no. 17 of his order has also produced the copy of capital account of the assessee in the partnership firm, M/s. Sonam Builders showing withdrawal of amount of Rs. 3,21,17,543/- for the year ended 31.03.2016. The ld. CIT(A) at page no. 18 to 22 of his order has also reproduced the copy of ledger account of the assessee in the partnership firm M/s. Sonam Builders showing the various withdrawal transactions. The ld. CIT(A) has also reproduced the copy of bank statement of Bank of India from which the various payment was made to the seller of the flat along with copies of drafts issued by the Bank of Maharashtra etc. All the supporting evidences showing the sources of payments were also filed before the assessing officer as reflected Bharat Mithalal Jain A.Y. 2016-17 in the copy of letter dated 23.03.2022 filed before the assessing officer in response to notice issued u/s 122(1) of the Act dated 22.03.2022 by the assessing officer. However, the AO has not discussed all these supporting relevant evidences filed by the assessee in the assessment order. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that ld. CIT(A) has not accepted any additional evidences under Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the solitary ground of appeal filed by the Revenue that ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences. Accordingly, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06.03.2025.