Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased a plot of land for Rs. 24,66,752/- paid by cheque. The Assessing Officer (AO) alleged an additional payment of Rs. 41,27,693/- as unexplained investment based on an impounded document from a survey at Yashoda Properties.
Held
The Tribunal found that the impounded document did not show any cash payment for the plot in question. The statement from a partner of Yashoda Properties also did not indicate any cash payment by the assessee for this specific plot. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not substantiated.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 41,27,693/- as unexplained investment is justified without proper evidence, based on an impounded document and the AO's assumptions.
Sections Cited
69, 151, 120(4), 147, 143, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr.Rajesh Govind Chouhan, V The Joint Commissioner Plot No.14, Shree Hari s. of Income-tax, Central Banglow, Nandadeep Society, Circle-1(3), Pune. Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Maharashtra. PAN: ADLPC5054E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – AR Revenue by Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vindo Pawar – DR Date of hearing 05/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 14.10.2024 for the A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') it be held that the addition of Rs.41,27,693/ made u/s 69 of the Act treating it to be unexplained investment is without any evidence or corroborative material and is purely on the basis of assumption. Thus, the addition so made by Ld. AO and that upheld by Ld. CIT(A) be kindly deleted and accordingly the Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.
2. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') it be held that the Ld. AO and the Ld. Pr.CIT granting approval u/s 151 of the Act have not applied their mind on the case records and Ld. Pr.CIT has granted a mechanical approval. Thus, the Assessment Proceedings initiated on the basis of such mechanical approval be kindly quashed and accordingly Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this regard.
3. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') it be held that the Assessment Order so passed is invalid since the same is passed by a Joint Commissioner of Income-tax who generally cannot be an Assessing Officer unless so directed u/s 120(4) of the Act. Thus, the Assessment Order so passed be kindly quashed and accordingly Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this regard.
4. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') it be held that the Assessment Order so passed is invalid since the said order does not carry a Valid Document Identification Number. Thus, the Assessment Order so passed be kindly quashed and accordingly Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this regard.
5. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') it be held that the Assessment Proceedings so s completed in the instant case is not in accordance with the provisions of section 147 r.w.s 143 of the Act. Thus, the Assessment Proceedings so completed be kindly quashed and accordingly Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this regard.
The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR filed a paper book containing 42 pages. Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani-Advocate submitted that during the year, Assessee has purchased Plot No.10 on 21.05.2014 for a consideration of Rs.24,66,752/-. The entire consideration was paid by cheque. The Assessing Officer had received some information with reference to a survey conducted in the case of Yashoda Properties. As per the Assessing Officer, page no.13 was impounded during the survey which is related to the project in which assessee has purchased Plot No.10. The Assessing Officer has reproduced the said page in the assessment order. Ld.AR submitted that nowhere it is mentioned that Assessee has paid any cash amount. Ld.AR took us through the statement of Mr.Amol Balvadkar which is at page no.4 to 12 of the paper book and demonstrated that in Answer to Question No.13, Mr.Balvadkar has explained regarding the project rolling hills and nowhere he has mentioned any cash payment by assessee. Ld.AR submitted that therefore, there is no evidence for making an addition under section 69A of the Act. Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani submitted that Section 69A will not be applicable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that addition may be deleted. Ld.AR submitted that there are other legal grounds raised by assessee.
Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). We specifically asked ld.DR to explain from the impounded document regarding cash payments by assessee. Ld.DR could not explain. There are 16 names mentioned on page 13 which was impounded. On 20.02.2025, we requested ld.DR for the Revenue to find out status of assessment in other names appearing on impounded page 13. The case was specifically adjourned at the request of the ld.DR. However, ld.DR has not filed any details till date and showed his inability to explain.
Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.
4.1 In this case the Assessee purchased plot number 10 admeasuring 16445 Sq Ft from Mr.Amol Ratan Balwadkar and Sagar Vijay Balwadkar(owners 0f Plot) vide Registered Sale Deed dated 21/05/2014 for a consideration of Rs.2466752/- paid on 23/05/2014 & 23/06/2014 by cheques. Copy of Sale deed is at page 14-39 of the paper book filed by the Assessee. In the impugned Sale Deed there is no mention of Yashoda Properties. As per the Registered Sale Deed Mr. Amol Ratan Balwadkar and Sagar Vijay Balwadkar has sold the plot number 10 to the assessee.
4.2 However, in the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer has alleged payment of Rs.41,27,693/- over and above the payment mentioned in the Sale deed based on a paper impounded during the survey in the case of Yashoda Properties. The limited issue for our consideration is addition made in Assessment Order of Rs.41,27,693/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment in plot . The Ld.CIT(A) has applied section 69A , the relevant paragraph of Ld.CIT(A)’s order is reproduced here under : “9. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. The facts of the case are that M/s. Yashoda Properties developed a project namely "Rolling Hills". During the survey conducted on M/s. Yashoda Properties, a sheet containing the details of consideration for various plots was found and impounded. The said sheet has been scanned by the AO in para 5.1 of the assessment order. This sheet contains the total consideration of various plots including the amount in cheque as well as in cash. As on the date of preparation of sheet, cash from one customer was received by M/s. Yashoda Properties. This was admitted by Shri Amol R. Balvadkar, partner of M/s. Yashoda Properties. Meaning thereby, the correctness of figures mentioned in this sheet has been accepted by M/s. Yashoda Properties. The appellant has accepted that the plot no. 10 has been purchased by him. As per the impounded sheet, the total sale consideration for said plot no. 10 is Rs.65,94,445/-. The sale deed for the said plot no. 10 has already been executed and registered. Therefore, M/s. Yashoda Properties must have received the full consideration for this plot no.
10. It is also important to mention that for plot no. 7, for which cash consideration received by M/s. Yashoda Properties is explicitly mentioned in the impounded sheet, is a smaller plot as compared to plot no.
Therefore, the consideration for plot no. 10 cannot be lower than the consideration for plot no.
Considering the totality of facts of the case and the reasons given in the assessment order, the addition of Rs.41,27,693/- made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act is upheld. The ground no. 1 raised by the appellant stands DISMISSED.”
4.3 Be it as it may be, we have carefully studied the impugned impounded paper number 13. The contents of the said impounded paper are reproduced here as under :
ROLLING HILLS PLOT AREA R. TOTAL NAME OF PAYMENT NO AMT CUST. CHQ. CASH RECEIVED PENDING AMOL SAGAR SIR SIR 1 15604 6,257,204.00 Mr.Sanjay B. 1,100,000.00 5,157,204.00 Balwadkar 2 13085 5,247,085.00 Mr.Sanjay B. 5,247,085.00 Balwadkar 3 12394 4,969,994.00 4,969,994.00 4 11842 4,748,642.00 Mr.Magan B 4,748,642.00 Balwadkar 5 12544 5,030,144.00 5,030,144.00 6 12228 4,903,428.00 4,903,428.00 7 11961 4,437,531.00 Mr.Mayank 3,325,158.00 550,000.00 550,000.00 12,373.00 Varma 8 12610 5,056,610.00 5,056,610.00 9 11918 4,540,758.00 Mr. Vivek 100,000.00 4,440,758.00 Advuthava 10 16445 6,594,445.00 6,594,445.00 11 11844 4,749,111.00 4,749,444.00 12 11844 4,749,444.00 4,749,444.00 13 11870 4,759,870.00 4,759,870.00 14 14657 5,877,457.00 5,877,457.00 15 11842 4,748,642.00 4,748,642.00 16 11842 4,748,642.00 4,748,642.00
204530.00 81,419,340.00 4,525,158.00 550,000.00 550,000.00 75,794,182.00 4.4 As it can be seen there is no mention of Cash Payment against the plot number 10. There is mention of cash payments against plot number 7 purchased by Mayank Verma. The principle of analysis of any impounded document is that the contents of the documents have to be read in totality. In this case it is very much clear that against plot number 10, there is no mention of cash Payment .Since against plot number 7 the cash payment is mentioned and no cash payment is mentioned against Plot number 10, one has to understand that it means no cash payment was made against plot number 10. Also, the last column heading is “Pending”, it means those amounts were not paid.
4.5 We have also studied the statement of Mr. Amol Ratan Balwadkar which is at page 4-12 of the paper book filed by the Assessee. The answer given by Mr.Amol Balwadkar regarding impounded page 13 is as under : “13 This sheet contains details regarding sale of plot under project “Rolling Hills”. This amount of Rs.11,00,000 in cash was paid to u/s. for providing services like land scaping, plantation etc near the farm house.” 4.6 Thus, Mr.Amol Balwadkar has accepted receipt of Rs.11,00,000/- in cash which is against plot number 7. Thus, Mr.Amol Balwadkar has nowhere mentioned that Assessee Rajesh Chouhan has paid any cash against plot number 10.
4.7 The Revenue has not brought on record any other evidence. The entire case of the AO and CIT (A) is based on the impounded page number 13 and statement of Mr.Amol Balwadkar. We have already discussed above that no where it emanates that Assessee Rajesh Chouhan has paid cash over and above the amount mentioned in the registered Sale Deed during the year. Therefore, there is no merit in the impugned addition. In these facts and circumstances of the case we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.41,27,693/-. Accordingly, Ground Number 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
4.8 Since we have decided Ground Number 1 raised by the assessee in favour of the assessee we do not intend to adjudicate the Ground Number 2 to 5 as they become academic in nature being legal grounds. These Legal grounds are left open. In the Result the Ground Number 2 to 5 raised by the Assessee are dismissed as unadjudicated.
4.9 Ground Number 6 is General in nature, no ground was added or amended. Hence, the Ground Number 6 is dismissed.
5 In the result Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th May, 2025.