Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sold a property to a long-term tenant who was a relative. The sale consideration included a significant cash component received in installments. The deceased owner's legal heirs, including the appellant, executed the sale deed.
Held
The Tribunal held that the cash amount received for the property sale was the collective share of all seven joint owners and not unexplained money in the hands of a single assessee. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds related to the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition of unexplained cash as per Section 68 of the Act.
Sections Cited
148, 151A, 68, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2019-20.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.06.2025 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
2. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating ground relating to the Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 2– validity of reassessment proceeding despite the fact that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by AO on 31.08.2022 is time barred as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Union of India v/s. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) Judgement dated 3rd October, 2024 and thus deserves to be quashed.
3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceeding despite the fact that Notice issued u/s 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing officer is in violation of Section 151A of the Act and CBCT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. 4 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceeding despite the fact that Notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.08.2022 is void and bad in law as it was issued without DIN. 5 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding addition on account of alleged unexplained money amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, when no such addition is called for.
6. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.
The facts of the case is that, the property in question has been sold to Ms. Ushaben Ghanshyambhai Patel (PAN: BIXPP2308E) who has been staying the same house property for more than 30 years as a tenant. She has a family relation with the seller (owner of the property) Mr.Kantibhai Mujibhai Patel and his family. The tenant Mrs. Ushaben Ghanshyambhai Patel has decided to purchase the same house property as and when she wished and so she started to give cash amount in the installment from her saving by time to time to Mr.kantibhai Muljibhai Patel. On 20.11.2017 Mr. Kantibhai Mujibhai Patel was died. So Mrs. Ushaben Ghanshyambhai Patel has decided to make sale deed of the property so that the transaction should be registered and legally Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 3– approved as they did not kept any proof of cash payment made to Mr.Kantibhai Muljibhai Patel as they have sound relation and mutual understanding with the family of him. The property was in the name of Mr.Kantibhai Mujibhai Patel so after his death, the below mentioned family members become the joint owner of the same as inheritance.
Mrs. Sudhaben Kantilal Patel (Wife) 2. Mrs. Foram Jasmin Patel (Daughter in law) 3. Mr. Arya Jasmin Patel (Grandson) 4. Mr. Aditya Jasmin Patel (Grandson) 5. Mrs. Hemengini H Patel (Daughter) 6. Mrs. Tripti Nilang Trivedi (Daughter)
The sale deed was accordingly executed jointly by all the above members, and the sale consideration of Rs. 18,90,000/– was received as under:
Rs. 4,00,000/– credited in the Central Bank of India, Kayavarohan Branch, A/c No. 3181067681, through Cheque No. 034344 in favour of Mrs. Sudhaben Kantilal Patel; Rs. 8,00,000/– credited in the Central Bank of India, Kayavarohan Branch, A/c No. 2161770460, through Cheque No. 070576 in favour of Mrs. Sudhaben Kantilal Patel; and Rs. 6,90,000/– received in cash in instalments, representing payments made over time by the purchaser. Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 4– It is, therefore, evident that the cash amount of Rs. 6,90,000/– mentioned in the sale deed does not belong to a single individual but represents the collective share of all seven joint owners.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the property was jointly owned by seven legal heirs, and the sale consideration of Rs. 6,90,000/- in cash was received collectively by them. The Assessing Officer, however, failed to appreciate the joint ownership and erroneously treated the entire cash receipt as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee alone. Considering the facts of the case, and the joint nature of ownership and receipt of sale proceeds, the addition made u/s 68 and the consequent penalty levied on the assessee in respect of the entire amount cannot be upheld. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. The same is directed to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 14.11.2025. S /- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE-PRESIDENT (True C ()) () Ahmedabad; Dated 14.11.2025 MV Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 5–