Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for AY 2013-14 based on information that the assessee company purchased an immovable property for Rs. 2.80 Crores but did not file its return. The AO made an addition for unexplained investment.
Held
The Tribunal held that the sale deed for the property in question pertains to another assessee with a similar name, not the appellant. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify facts and delete the addition if the documents do not pertain to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made on account of purchase of immovable property is valid when the property in question belongs to another entity with a similar name.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 26.08.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 29.09.2025.
The A.O. reopened the assessment on the basis of information that the assessee-company had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 2.80 Crores, but had not filed its return of income. The A.O. thereafter completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, making an addition of Rs. 2,80,00,000/- as unexplained investment. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the matter for a fresh assessment on the ground that the assessee was not provided proper opportunity to explain its case. However, in the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5 to 6.2 has narrated facts pertaining to some other case and set aside the assessment to the A.O. for denovo assessment.
At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) submitted that the assessee has not purchased any immovable property and that the alleged property said to have been purchased actually pertains to another assessee with a similar name, viz., M/s. Ambience Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCM8825H), No. 29, Hospital Road, Malik’s Building, 1st Floor, Bangalore. The Ld. A.R.
1. further submitted that this information was obtained through CPGRAMS and was furnished before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld.
CIT(A) considered facts relating to some other case and wrongly set aside the matter to the A.O. The Ld. A.R. therefore requested that the addition be deleted, as the assessee is not involved in the alleged property transaction on the basis of which the addition has been made.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.) supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The A.O. has made addition of Rs. 2.80 crores towards alleged purchase of an immovable property without mentioning the details of the property said to have been purchased.
The assessee has now produced a copy of the sale deed obtained from the Income Tax Department through CPGRAMS, which clearly shows that the purchase of the property in question relates to M/s.
Ambience Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCM8825H). The sale deed is not in the name of the assessee, M/s. Ambience Management and Compliance Services Pvt. Ltd. (PAN:
AALCA1248A). In view of the above, we restore the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to verify the facts and delete the addition in the hands of the assessee, in case the documents relied upon for making the addition do not pertain to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 27th day of November, 2025 at Chennai.