Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual engaged in manufacturing and fabrication, appealed an order related to AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69 for cash payment and Section 68 for unexplained credit concerning the purchase of an immovable property. The assessee argued that the property registration occurred in FY 2013-14, while payments were made in the impugned year.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the property registration date (18.10.2013) fell in the subsequent Financial Year (FY 2013-14, AY 2014-15), although some payments were made in advance during the impugned year (AY 2013-14). The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the actual registration date before finalizing the assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made under Sections 69 and 68 were justified when the property purchase date and payment dates straddled different financial years, and the Assessing Officer failed to consider the property registration date?
Sections Cited
148, 153C, 147, 143(2), 69, 68, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] for Assessment Year 2013-14 dated 15.05.2024 passed u/sec.250 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in issuing the notice under Section 148 based on the information pertaining to the appellant which was found from the books of accounts/documents seized during the course of search of the other person which was contrary to the provisions of Section 153C
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law in so far as the same should have been framed u/s 153C of the Act since it is based on the information contained in the books of accounts/documents seized or requisitioned during the course of search of the other person.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has erred in making the assessment under Section 147 without issuing the notice under Section 143(2)
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) / National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the addition of unexplained investment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 amounting to Rs. 6,00,000 pertaining to alleged cash payment made by the appellant to M/s. MGN Properties over & above the agreed sale consideration.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) / National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the addition of unexplained investment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 amounting to Rs.15,81,000 pertaining to the sources of payments made during the year under consideration for purchasing the property.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal
.”
2. At the outset, ld.Counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing requested for not pressing the legal issues raised in Ground No.1, 2 and 3. We accordingly dismiss the Ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 as not pressed.
3. The issue in Ground No.4 and 5 relates to addition of Rs.6,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act for the alleged cash payment made by the assessee to M/s.MGN Properties over and above agreed sale consideration and also the addition of Rs.15,81,000/- for the unexplained investment made for purchasing immovable property.
3.1 Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in manufacturing and fabrication of MSS Tanks for electrical transformer. Return of Income for A.Y.2013-14 furnished 26.09.2013 declaring income at Rs.4,32,570/-. Based on the information received by the Assessing Officer from the search action taken in the care of Patel Group at Ambernath on 08.08.2019 revealing that the assessee has paid Rs.6,00,000/- in cash for purchase of immovable property over and above the sale consideration and also the information that is immovable property purchased by the assessee value at Rs.35,56,000/- reopening proceeding under section 147 of the Act carried out. The assessee filed part of the details based on which Assessing Officer concluded re-assessment firstly making addition under section 69 of the Act of Rs.6 lakhs for the cash payment made for the purchase of property, and secondly, addition made under section 68 of the Act for [A] unexplained cash credit of Rs.15,81,000/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal.
The ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book containing 82 pages, wherein certain details of source of investments have been filed from page 1 to 18 and also certain decisions have been relied placed at paper book page 19 to 82 of the paper book. The ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to the page 1 of the paper book submitted that the source of investment of immovable property is the payment made by the assessee from her own account and also the payments made by the assessee’s husband for the purchase of property. He also submitted that some of the payments have been made during the F.Y.2013-14. So far as the source of amount invested by the assessee’s husband, reference made to the bank statement of assessee and her husband placed at page 7 to 18 of the paper book.
On the other hand, ld.DR for the Revenue vehemently argued and supported the order of Lower Authorities.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The additions initiated in Ground NO.4 at Rs.6 lakhs and [A] Ground No.5 at Rs.15,81,000/- both are having nexus to the purchase of immovable property located at plot no.K2, Udyog Bhavan 2, Jambhivali Village, Dist-Thane having registered value of Rs.35,56,000/-. The Assessing Officer has alleged that the assessee has made cash payment over and above the sale consideration fixed for purchase of property. We, however, noticed that the sale deed has been registered on 18.10.2013 i.e.during the subsequent Financial Year i.e.F.Y.2013-14(relevant to A.Y.2014-15). The impugned year before us is A.Y.2013-14(F.Y.2012-13), wherein some part of the payments were made in advance. We observe that this fact of actual date of purchase of immovable property has remained to be considered by the Assessing Officer before finalizing the assessment. The property in question has been registered during F.Y.2013-14, but part of the payment have been made during the year under consideration and that also has two components, one for the payments made by the assessee and second for the payments made by the assessee’s husband. Bank Statements of both the persons have been filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that Assessing Officer having not noted the fact of date of registered sale deed falling in F.Y.2013-14, we deem it [A] appropriate to restore both the issues raised on merit in Ground No.4 and 5 to the file of the ld.Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee for furnishing all necessary details which have been placed before us and then should decide in accordance with law. Ld.Assessing Officer to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass the order in accordance with Law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to seek adjournment unless otherwise required and also provide correct and active Email-id, Contact details on the Income Tax Portal, so that proper communication is possible between the Department and Assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.4 & 5 appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.