Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made investments in insurance premium totaling Rs. 26,00,000 between FY 2010-11 and 2014-15. The AO made an addition of Rs. 14,99,356 under Section 69, treating it as unexplained investment for AY 2016-17, as the source for this portion was not proved. The assessee contended that the investments were made in earlier years, not the relevant assessment year, but the CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 3-day delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the assessee's specific contention that the investments were made in prior years. As no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to prove the earlier year investments, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to furnish necessary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in insurance premium for AY 2016-17, when the assessee claimed the investments were made in prior assessment years, and whether the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate this specific ground.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 69, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao
:Asst.Year 2016-2017 Smt.Sankar Alamelu The Income Tax Officer Aiswarya, Near M.C. v. Ward -1 Pazhaveedu Alappuzha. Alappuzha – 688 009. PAN :ARNPA4116H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.Divya Ravindran, Advocate Respondent by :Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :02.04.2025 Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R
Per George George K, Vice-President :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against National Faceless Assessment Centre / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] order dated 06.01.2023 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the assessment year 2016-2017.
There is a delay of 3 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal.
. Smt.Sankar Alamelu. 2.1 We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing of this appeal. We are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay of 3 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits.
The solitary issue raised in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,99,356 u/s.69 of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are as follows: It is the claim of the assessee that she had paid Rs.26,00,000 in total towards insurance premium in her name in the previous years, viz., financial years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015. Assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 30.03.2022. In the said assessment order the Assessing Officer (“the AO") had made an addition of Rs.14,99,356 u/s.69 of the Act for the investment in insurance premium (i.e., Rs.26,00,000 – Rs.11,00,644 for which source is available as per the AO).
Aggrieved by the assessment completed by making addition of R.14,99,356 u/s.69 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, it was contended that the investments in insurance premium by the assessee was made in her name in the earlier years and not for the relevant assessment year, viz., A.Y. 2016-2017 and hence addition u/s.69 cannot be made. The CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) reads as follows:-
“5.1 I have considered the submission of the assessee and given a careful thought. The solitary issue of dispute is regarding source of investment made in Insurance policy to the extent of Rs.14,99,356/-. The AQ after due deliberation of facts has treated an amount of Rs.14,99,356/- out of total investment of Rs.26,00,000/- as unexplained investment in terms of section 69 rws 115BBE of I.T. Act. During the appeal proceeding, the assessee has explained that source of investment comprised mainly from tuition fee, amounts taken from husband and loans taken from brother in law (during the financial year 2013-14). However, she failed to submit the details of names of students, their addresses, copies of receipts, cash book, copy of bank statement reflecting those tuition fee as the tuition fee claimed to have been received in two financial years were around Rs. 10 lakhs, which is quite substantial. No explanation or details are furnished regarding sources of income of her husband, who had given some amounts (amount not specified neither the purpose) during financial year 2010-11 and 2011-12 (whether amounts advanced by her husband was in cash or through account payee cheques or drafts etc.) Further, regarding huge amount of Rs.10 lakhs claimed to have been received from NRI relatives (during FY 2013-14), no details viz. profession of the NRI, relation, confirmation, whether amounts represent interest bearing/interest free loans or gifts etc. No cogent material or evidences are brought on record to substantiate. The details submitted before the undersigned were already submitted before the AO and after taking into consideration these details, the AO arrived at a particular conclusion regarding application of section 69 of I.T. Act. In instant case, after detailed analysis of the issue, the AO has already given the credit of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,644/- before determining the quantum of addition to be made under the head unexplained investment for an amount of Rs.14,99,356/-. Having considered the entire facts of the case, evidences brought on record, I find no reason to interfere in the order of AO, hence, the addition so made is confirmed. As a result, grounds of appeal so filed are dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessee . Smt.Sankar Alamelu. before the first appellate authority had specifically contended that the investments in insurance premium was made by the assessee not during the relevant assessment year but in the earlier years, hence the addition cannot be made in the relevant assessment year. In this context, the learned AR took us through the grounds raised before the CIT(A), viz., ground Nos. 3 and 4. The learned AR submitted that the specific plea of the assessee has not been adjudicated by the CIT(A), hence, the matter may be restored to the files of the CIT(A) to consider ground Nos.3 and 4.
The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee before the CIT(A) had specifically contended that the payments towards insurance premium in her name was made not in the relevant assessment year but during the earlier years. Therefore, it was contended that there cannot be any addition as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act for the relevant assessment year. This plea of the assessee has not been adjudicated by the first appellate authority. The learned AR has not placed anything on record to prove that the investments in insurance premium was made in the earlier years, hence, we are not in a position to adjudicate this case. Therefore, the case is restored to the file of the first appellate authority. The assessee shall furnish the necessary evidence to prove that the addition u/s.69 of the Act is not warranted for the relevant assessment year. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 02nd day of April, 2025.