MOOL RAJ,HAPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 3(4), HAPUR

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Muzaffarnagar dated 30.01.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in purchase of property.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with the AIR information in respect of purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs. 46,85,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the source of purchase of the impugned property.

In its reply, the assessee claimed that the said property was received by him as a gift from his maternal uncle and while executing the gift deed, the preparer of the documents wrongly mentioned the same as ‘sale deed’. In support of his contention, the assessee filed an affidavit of his mother who was a power of attorney of the said property.

The claim of the assessee did not find any favour with the Assessing Officer who was of the opinion that since the transaction amount mentioned in the deed was Rs. 25 lakhs, though the stamp duty has been paid on Rs. 46.85 lakhs, the Assessing Officer treated the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained investment and made addition accordingly.

The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success.

Before me, the ld. AR drew my attention to the registered document and pointed out that inadvertently, the preparer of the document mentioned the transaction as ‘sale’ instead of ‘gift’. The ld. AR further pointed out that the registered power of attorney was given by his maternal uncle in the name of his mother in respect of the said property. The ld. AR further pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not considered the affidavit filed by the mother of the assessee and by the assessee also. It is the say of the ld. AR that the facts of the case have not been properly dealt with by the Assessing Officer.

I have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and gone through the documentary evidence referred to hereinabove. It is true that the documents refer to as a sale of the immovable property. But the contention of the assessee that he has received the said property as gift from the maternal uncle supported by affidavit cannot be brushed aside lightly. In my view, the facts have not been properly appreciated. In my opinion, human error has crept while preparing the document and the same needs further verification. I, therefore, deem it fit to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish once again the affidavits and give full address of the maternal uncle. The Assessing Officer is directed to call the maternal uncle by issuing summons as per provisions of the law, examine him and decide the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.