G.K. REDDY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3353/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 October 2022AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2010-11 as withdrawn. For AY 2008-09, the tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) due to lack of evidence regarding the source of funds for payments.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11. The appeal for AY 2010-11 was permitted to be withdrawn. For AY 2008-09, one ground was not pressed, and the remaining two grounds related to additions for payments made for property title and construction were challenged.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the source of funds for payments made towards property title and construction, and whether the additions made by the revenue were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Hearing: 27.10.2022Pronounced: 28.10.2022

O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, both dated 31.10.2019 relevant to the assessment years 2008- 09 and 2010-11.

2.

When the appeals were taken up for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 in may be permitted to withdraw against which, the ld. DR has not raised any objection. In view of the above plea of the ld. Counsel, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

So far as appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 in is concerned, the assessee has raised three grounds and the first ground relates to addition of ₹.50 lakhs has not been pressed during the course of hearing by making endorsement in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the above ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed.

4.

The second ground raised in the appeal of the assessee relates to payment to releasers of the release deed to the property situated at Hafeezpet Village, RR District amounting to ₹.17 lakhs. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee made payment of ₹.17 lakhs in order to claim his title of the property. When the assessee was asked for source, it was submitted before the Assessing Officer that an amount of ₹.25 lakhs has been received as a loan from Mr. Sukumar by way of cheque and deposited into the bank account out of which ₹.17 lakhs has been paid in order to claim his title in a land situated at Hafeezpet Village, RR District. However, the assessee has not furnished any confirmation or proof of receipt either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the ITAT except stating that loan was received out of which the amount was paid. Under the above facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed.

5. The third ground raised in the appeal of the assessee relates to payment of ₹.17,37,000/- towards ground levelling and compound wall construction in the property. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has called for details of payments made towards ground levelling and compound wall construction in the property at Hafeezpet Village, RR District. The AR of the assessee has stated that an amount of ₹.17,37,000/- was spent by the assessee and produced the receipts. However, the assessee has not provided any documentary evidence for source of payment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has added the expenditure claimed by the assessee as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has called for remand report, wherein, the Assessing Officer has stated that the explanation offered by the assessee is not tenable, no transaction is involved directly by the assessee, and no payment has been made by the assessee directly, thereby, the addition made by the Assessing Officer holds good to the extent of ₹.17,37,000/-. Considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and the assessee has not furnished the copy of invoice since the payments were not made by the assessee directly, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is correct and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee.

6. The assessee has not been able to file any details towards the source for payment of ₹.17,37,000/- or copy of the invoice towards payment, or what are the materials purchased, to whom the payment was made, etc. before the ITAT for claiming the expenditure. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on 28th October, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →