Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: S/SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP & T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 01/03/2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 04/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 1.7.2019 passed by Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad [for short “Ld.CIT(A)] relating to the assessment year 2016-17.
Assessee is an individual and partner in Nikunj Vegetable Company. Assessee is deriving income by way of remuneration and interest from the firm, and income from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income on 21.9.2017 declaring total income at Rs.7,67,300/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under 2 CASS to examine whether investment and income relating to the properties are duly disclosed by the assessee or not. The ld.AO issued requisite notices from time to time and sought for various informations in this regard. It is observed that the assessee as Power Attorney holder, sold immovable property viz. land situated at Village Kamod, Sub-District Vata, District Ahmedabad at survey No.62 for Rs.84,60,000/- on 15.2.2016 vide registered sale deed document no.368/2016. It was further noticed by the AO that the above property was purchased by the assessee and seven other persons on the same day i.e. 15.02.2016, and the assesee’s share in the said property is 12.50%, which in terms of value came to Rs.11,09,325 [Rs.10,57,500/- plus Rs.51,825 stamp duty]. The ld.AO sought for information by issuance of various notices under section 142(1), but the same were not complied with the assessee. Thereafter, the ld.AO has given a final opportunity to the assessee by issuance of notice dated 22.11.2018 and requested assessee to furnish his reply along with support evidences (details of investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed along with supporting evidences), but the assessee has again not responded. Therefore, in the absence of compliance, submission and clarification from the assessee, sale consideration of Rs.84,60,000/- was treated as unaccounted and undisclosed income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee under the head “income from other sources”. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted bank statement of three sellers. It is evident that three sellers of the property have received Rs.58,60,000/- except Rs.2,44,166/- which is still to be received and Rs.26,00,000/- has been received by the confirming party in the sale deed viz. Mr.Mohamyakub Hajismal Munshi. After examining the claim of the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) deleted Rs.82,15,834/- except Rs.2,44,166/-. The relevant observation and finding of the ld.CIT(A) are as follows:
“4.1 ….
In my opinion the addition made of Rs.26,00,000/- in the hands of appellant on account of money received by confirming party and addition of Rs.58,60,000/- made on account of undisclosed sale consideration (father and 2 uncles) is not correct as per law. This is because the money trail is going to specific sellers & confirming party.lt so happened that the three old family members desired to execute legal papers in registration office on their behalf and given power of attorney to Appellant for that specific purpose. No tax liability can be fastened on the holder of power of attorney as the entire sale consideration (including the payment received by confirming party) has gone directly to the four sellers The amount which has not been shown as receipt by one of the sellers, the father of the appellant to the extent of Rs.2,44,166/- is not proved to have been paid or shown as taxable in any of the hands as per I.T provisions. It can fairly be presumed that this amount has actually been received by the appellant as holder"^ Power of Attorney as much time has lapsed since 12/02/2016 In other words, the onus has not been discharged by the appellant to the extent of Rs 2,44.166/-, therefore the same addition is hereby confirmed, Consequently, the addition of Rs.82,15,834/- made in the hands of appellant is hereby deleted. The ground nos.3 & 4 are partly allowed.”
Aggrieved against this appellate order, the assessee is before the Tribunal with the following grounds: “1) The learned CIT Appeal has erred in facts and law by confirming the addition of Rs.2,44,466.- by not considering the thing that appellant has paid full part of his share to purchase the property.
2) The learned CIT Appeal has erred in facts and law by confirming the addition in respect of stamp duty of Rs.51,825 when it was paid out of withdrawals made from bank, agriculture income earned by assessee & accumulated savings.”
4 5. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that no tax liability can be fastened on the assessee, as the assessee is a Power of Attorney holder, and entire sale consideration including payment of Rs.26,00,000/- has given directly to three sellers and confirming party. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) is not correct in confirming to the extent of Rs.2,44,166/- as addition in the hands of the assessee.
In reply, the ld.DR has stated that the assessee could not able to prove receipt of Rs.2,44,166/- by the sellers during the ex parte assessment proceedings, as well as before the appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A) even after lapse of four years from the date of sale registration. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the addition is to be sustained.
We have gone through the material available on record and the orders passed by the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has deleted Rs.82,15,834/- i.e. [Rs.58,60,000/- plus Rs.26,00,000/- minus Rs.2,44,166/-]. The dispute before us is addition to the extent of Rs.2,44,166/- which has not been shown as receipt by one of the sellers i.e. father of the assessee herein. The assessee has neither proved with supporting evidence about the receipt of outstanding sale proceeds by the seller, nor able to show whether the same was taxed in the hands of persons involved in the transaction. Thus, the assessee has not discharged his onus to the extent of Rs.2,44,166/- before the Income-tax authorities or before us. This factual aspect was verified by the ld.CIT(A), which does not call for our intervention, and therefore, ground no.1 of the appeal is rejected.
5 8. So far as the second ground is concerned the ld.counsel for the assessee has not pressed the same for adjudication. The same is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.