INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(1) AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ROOPSINGH BHUPAL SINGH GOYAL, GHODASAR

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28/08/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.

The Revenue, in this appeal, is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of Rs.2,48,62,500/- ITO vs. Roopsingh Bhupal Singh Goyal Asst.Year : 2012-13 on account of unexplained investment in property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The brief facts of the case as extracted from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,38,120/- for the A.Y. 2012- 13. On verification of records, the AO noticed that the assessee purchased an agricultural land jointly with his wife during the impugned year. As per the sale agreement the sale price was fixed at Rs. 5,22,50,000/-. However, as per the final sale deed the land was purchased for Rs. 25,25,000/- resulting in difference of Rs. 4,97,25,000/-. The case was re- opened u/s. 147 and the AO issued notice u/s. 148 to the assessee. Further the AO issued notices u/s. 142(1) to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to comply with the notices. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment proceedings making addition of Rs. 2,48,62,500/- being 50% share of the assessee in the difference value as unexplained investment. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal with the Ld. CIT(A).

Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee furnished additional evidences and explained that though the initial sale agreement was signed on 11/04/2011, there was a dispute with the sellers resulting in cancellation agreement dated 08/06/2011. In support of the above claims the assessee furnished copies of sale agreement, cancellation agreement, sale-deed, etc. To verify the aforesaid claim, the Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under: “4. On going through the submission made by the assessee it is found that the claim of the assessee is supported by the documentary evidences. The assessee has submitted proof of cancellation of agreement dated 08/06/2011. 5. It is discernible from above facts that the assessee has established and explained the source of such credit entries in his bank accounts along with supporting evidences. ITO vs. Roopsingh Bhupal Singh Goyal Asst.Year : 2012-13 Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, it is recommended that the same may be taken into consideration, if deemed fit."

The Ld. CIT(A) considering the remand report of the AO and the submissions and additional evidences furnished by the assessee deleted the additions so made by the AO, observing as under: “6.0 To begin with, the additional evidence submitted in form of documents are crucial in deciding the issue on hand and based on the facts, the evidence is admitted in the interest of justice. The examination of the documents show that the parties initially entered into an agreement with certain terms of transfer where in the sale consideration was fixed based on the premise that the land was suitable for commercial extraction of marble. But due to reasons as narrated above the earlier terms of transfer was cancelled. This is not disputed by the sellers as evident from the cancellation agreement. Thereafter, the property was ultimately registered as agriculture land as seen from the subsequent sale deed. Further, the land continues to be in the status of agriculture land as evident from the report of the valuer. More importantly, there is nothing concrete to indicate that assessee paid a sum of Rs.2,48,62,500 over and above the sum specified in the sale deed. A mere difference in the value of the property specified in the disputed agreement and the sale deed is not sufficient to conclude that assessee has paid such a difference amount to the sellers.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. The Ld. CIT(A), in this case, has deleted the additions so made by the AO by calling for remand report from the AO on the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. The AO in his remand report has categorically reported that the claim of the assessee that the earlier agreement was cancelled and a new agreement was executed was duly supported by documentary evidences. That the assessee has established and explained the source of such credit entries in his bank accounts along with supporting evidences. The assessee has duly explained the difference of amount between the earlier agreement ITO vs. Roopsingh Bhupal Singh Goyal Asst.Year : 2012-13 and the new agreement. The Ld. CIT(A) duly considering the evidences on file has deleted the addition. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld.