DIVINE KANJIRAMADATHIL IGNATIOUS,KOCHI vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), TRIVANDRUM

:Asst.Year 2016-2017 Divine Kanjiramadathil Ignatious The Income Tax Officer CCC6-1499, 42/2435A v. Ward 2(1) Kanjiramadathil House Trivandrum. Wax Wall Lane Chittoor Road, Cochin – 682 018. PAN :AALPI4977M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Shivashanker Panicker, Advocaate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing :13.05.2025 Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R

Per George George K, Vice-President :

3. The grounds raised read as follows:-

1. The learned CIT(Appeals) is erred in adopting the wrongly reported property value of Rs.1,36,26,000/- as against the actual figure of Rs.13,25,500/- and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69. The data uploaded by the sub- registrar's office mistakenly included an extra digit, reflecting the property value as Rs.1,36,26,000/- instead of Rs.13,25,500/- .

2. The learned CIT(Appeals) is erred in treating the purchase of mutual fund for Rs.4,00,00/, purchase of equity shares for Rs.4,26,000/- and credit card payment for Rs.2,93,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C. The actual purchase amount for share and mutual funds, with the consideration discharged through bank was Rs.4,24,231/-. The remaining purchase amount pertains to switching transaction where holdings were transferred from one scheme to another, without making any payments.

Sr. Description Amount (in No. Rs.) 1. Income as per return of income filed (not filed) NA 2. Income as computed u/s.143(1)(a) NA 3. Addition in respect of purchase or immovable 1,36,26,000 property as disclosed above at para 4. Addition in respect of payment towards credit 2,93,000 bills.

5. Aggrieved by the best judgment assessment completed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, it was submitted that the assessee had ceased the employment with HDFC Bank Limited in October 2015, and subsequently, relocated abroad. It was stated that . Divine Kanjiramadathil Ignatious. since the taxable salary income was covered by the TDS and refund was claimed, coupled with the assessee’s relocation abroad, he did not file the return of income for the assessment year 2016-2017. It was submitted that the assessee became aware of the assessment proceedings only after receiving the ex parte assessment order. As regards the addition of Rs.1,36,26,000 on account of purchase of immovable property, the learned AR submitted that the assessee had purchased only a studio apartment valued at Rs.13,25,500 and after doing the interior and incurring registration expenses, the total cost on the flat was only Rs.28,00,000. It was stated that the data uploaded by Sub-Registrar’s office of cost of immovable property at Rs.1,36,26,000 was a mistake and the same has been corrected y the District Registrar, vide order dated 14.05.2024. The CIT(A), however, rejected the contentions of the assessee by holding that in absence of details it is unverifiable whether the sale deed submitted by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings and the property in question is one and the same. The relevant finding of the CIT(A), reads as under:-

“4.3.0 I have gone through the grounds of appeal, assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is seen from the submissions that the appellant had purchased the flat for Rs. 28 lakhs and the same was registered for Rs. 13,25,500/- . It is further submitted that the data uploaded by the sub registrar's office had one extra digit (6) by mistake the reported figure was Rs. 1,36,26,000/-. In support of his claim the appellant had filed a copy of the sale deed, housing loan sanctioned letter and a copy of the letter addressed to the Ernakulam District Registrar for correction of the fair value in the online data of the sale deed registered as document No. 2005/1/2015 at the sub registrar office Ernakulam. However, the appellant had not filed any letter from the Sub registrar office in this regard. In the absence of these details, it is . Divine Kanjiramadathil Ignatious. unverifiable whether the sale deed submitted by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings and the property in question is one and the same. In the absence of these details, the claim of the appellant could not considered and the addition made by the AO is upheld. The ground No. 1 is dismissed.”

6. As regards other additions made with regard to the purchase of mutual funds / equity shares and credit card bill payments, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR filed a paper book comprising of 92 pages enclosing therein purchase deed of immovable property dated 05.05.2015, rectification order of the District Registrar directing corrections in encumbrance certificate, submissions made before the AO, copy of the bank statement, HDFC OD account, tax computation sheet for salary for the relevant assessment year, etc. The learned AR by referring to the purchase deed of the immovable property dated 05.05.2015, submitted that the Sub Registrar Office had mistakenly included an extra digit reflecting the property value as 1,36,26,000 instead of Rs.13,25,500. The learned AR submitted that the same has been corrected by the District Registrar vide order dated 14.05.2024. A copy of the same (English translation) is placed on record at page 65 of the paper book. The learned AR submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, matter may be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Order pronounced on this 14th day of May, 2025.