Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a non-filer, was noticed for transactions in shares and purchase of property and a vehicle. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and after filing a return, additions were made for salary and unexplained investment in property. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, leading to the present appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the version of incidents claimed regarding the borrowed amount and the transaction of the plot. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO for unexplained investment in property were justified, and whether the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were valid.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 250, 234A, 234B, 139
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Mumbaidated 16.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. The impugned additions made in the order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2018 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted
2.1 The very action taken u/s. 147 r/w 148 is bad in law without jurisdiction and being void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment framed u/s 143(3)/148 dated 27.12.2018 also kindly be quashed.
2.2 The impugned order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 28.12.2007 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed.
Rs. 10,55,00/-: The Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO by treating Rs 10,55,000/- as unexplained investment made in the purchase of plot. The addition so made and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same kindly be deleted in full.
4. Rs. 4.32,313/-: The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.
5. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filers of return u/s. 139 of the Act. It was noticed by the department that the assessee entered into the transactions of shares amounting to Rs. 26,15,511/- and also purchased a property of Rs. 10.55 Lacs alongwith a vehicle of Rs. 5,05,788/-. The assessee also received a salary of Rs. 35,490/-. In view of the above information, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued vide dated: 26.03.2018 and in response to the same the assessee filed hise-return on 26.05.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 40,310/-. The case of the assessee was assessed after making addition of Rs. 1,65,490/- under the head salary and unexplained investment of Rs. 10.55 Lacs in house property. The assessee being aggrieved with the same, preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)- 2, Mumbai, who in turn confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee being further aggrieved with the same, preferred the present appeal before us. We have gone through the order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)- 2, Mumbai and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds of appeal taken before us.
3. It is observed that the AR of the assessee himself declared income of Rs. 1.3 Lacs earned from an educational institution under the head salary. The basic dispute in this matter related to the addition of Rs. 10.55 Lacs alleged as undisclosed investment by the assessee. It is observed that the assessee has submitted before the AO and the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)- 2, Mumbai, that the assessee is an actual owner in possession of plot no. 77, Shiv Nagar-III, Ram Nagariya, Jaipur measuring 262.20 Sq. Yards since 2005, i.e. from the date of allotment. The property was firstly allotted vide possession letter dated: 19.01.2005 from nizi khatedar and received a possession letter of the same. Later on, JDA issued a Patta in his name on 3.7.2008.
As per the assessee, he required some money, so he put his original paper with Mr. Arvind Kumar Mittal and made a power of attorney in his name as security of his money. Although the amount borrowed by the assessee from Mr. Arvind Kumar Mittal was nowhere mentioned in the submissions of the assessee as well as power of attorney signed in favour of Mr. Arvind Kumar Mittal. As per the assessee Mr. Arvind Kumar Mittal had wrong intentions and made fake sales agreement in one month back date and fraudulently created fake documents with an intention to swipe the plot. After that Mr. Arvind Kumar Mittal on 25.09.2009 made registry in the name of his wife Smt. Sunita Mittal with those fake documents and started looking for buyers. As per the assessee after many pressures, warnings and police threatening she was getting ready to give the property back and on 12.05.2010, she made a registered power of attorney in name of the assessee. On 03.06.2010 the assessee got registered his property in his name by using POA to his own name, as it is requirement of Govt. norms that, whenever a registry made, a consideration should always be there, so he has to put that amount of Rs. 10.55 Lacs in the documents, but actually no amount was paid.
Now in the light of above narrated facts, it is observed that the assessee has failed to:
a. Disclose the amount borrowed from Mr. Arvind Kumar Mittal; b. There is no reference of dispute in the registry document entered into by the assessee and wife of Mr. Arvind Kumar Mittal; c. give of amount borrowed and consequential use and repayment of the same; d. prove as to Whether the amount borrowed was paid out of income earned, or further borrowing was made; e. produce any proof of communications between the assessee and Mr. Arvind Kumar Mittal w.r.t. the dispute and any police complain etc.
In the given situation and facts, as narrated above in para 5 (supra), the assessee has failed to establish his version of incidents claimed to have taken place, and can’t be relied upon. In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed and orders of the authorities below are confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 28th day of July2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NARINDER KUMAR) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 28/07/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. आयकर आयु� CIT 3. 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड� फाइल/Guard file.