Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Ravinder Singh Brar, appealed against an addition of Rs. 1,65,636/- as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act for the purchase of a plot of land. The AO alleged the assessee made cash payments to M/s Bajwa Developer Ltd., while the assessee contended the plot was purchased from Mr. Vikas Sharma and all payments to Bajwa Developers were made by Mr. Sharma, not by him. The appeal was filed with a delay of 226 days due to the assessee's ill health and brain surgery.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted the lack of crucial documentary evidence from the assessee, such as the relinquishment agreement from Mr. Vikas Sharma or the direct sale deed. Due to conflicting claims and insufficient evidence, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a limited purpose, directing the assessee to provide necessary documentary evidence to prove his contention that the land was purchased from Mr. Vikas Sharma in April 2012 and that Mr. Sharma incurred the expenses.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Whether an addition for unexplained investment in a plot of land under Section 69A is justified; Determination of the actual payer of cash consideration for the property.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 69A, Section 148, Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 08.03.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward-1, Faridkot passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2019. belatedly filed by 226 (two hundred twenty-six) days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay on medical grounds stating the fact that the assessee had to undergo brain surgery and copies of medical documents has been annexed as Annexure-1. The assessee submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) has been passed on 08.03.2023 and due date for filing expired on 07.05.2023 but the appeal has been actually e-filed on 19.12.2023 which is barred by 226 (two hundred twenty- six) days. The assessee stated that he has received copy of the order from his chartered accountant on 27th Nov., 2023 and due to his continuous ill health, he could not act immediately on receipt of the said order. He further submitted that the assessee has undergone brain surgery in earlier period for which some medical documents has been submitted. (However, it is seen that the medical certificates relate to the period of 2016 and not to the period during which the appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority). It is further submitted by the assessee that on receipt of information, he took some to engage a new counsel who has guided him in filing this appeal before Tribunal which is belated by 226 days. He prayed for condonation of delay and for admitting the appeal for hearing on merits on the grounds that even after his brain surgery, he is not keeping good health and he tends to forget things and because of his continuous ill health, this delay in filing the appeal may please be condoned.
Considering the medical issues of the assessee, we find that there is no intentional neglect or willful default part of the assessee and as such, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his regular return for the year under appeal disclosing a total income of Rs.13.64 lakhs. It is alleged that the assessee has purchased a residential plot of land during the year under appeal from one M/s Bajwa Developer Ltd. and on the basis of information received by the AO that the assessee has made a payment of Rs.1,65,636/- in cash to the said M/s Bajwa Developer Ltd. on various dates and in absence of any response from the assessee explaining the nature and source of such investment the said amount has been added back as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act.
The matter was carried in appeal where written submission has been filed by the assessee challenging the reopening of proceedings u/s 147 on the grounds that there has been no application of mind in issuing the notice u/s 148 and also on the factual issue that no such cash payment has been made by the assessee for purchase of plot of land from Bajwa Developers Ltd. during the year under appeal. The assessee has however accepted that the plot of land was purchased from one Mr. Vikas Sharma resident of 660, Sector-8 Chand Enclave, Karnal in the month of April, 2012. He Developers to Mr. Vikas Sharma on 31.03.2011 and whatever payments that has been received by Bajwa Developers during F.Y. 2011-12, has been actually received from Mr. Vikas Sharam. Subsequently, this plot of land has been transferred by Mr. Vikas Sharma to the assessee, even though the transfer deed has been done in favour of the assessee directly and cash payments if any to the said developers has been made by Sh.
Vikas Sharma prior to the sale agreement of the assessee. There is no appearance by the assessee in course of hearing nor any adjournment application has been filed.
However, a paper book has been filed by the assessee containing various submissions and documentary evidences of sale agreement dated 31.03.2011 (in regional language) were the total price of the plot of land is disclosed at 21.92 lakhs.
However, no copy of any agreement of purchase of the land by the assessee from Mr. Vikas Sharma has been furnished before us. The only contention of the assessee is that the assessee has not made any cash payment to M/s Bajwa Developers at all, and it is paid by the original purchaser Mr. Vikas Sharma and the assessee has purchased the plot from the said Mr. Vikas Sharam after the end of the relevant year under, i.e. April, 2012.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there is no denial of the fact that the plot of the land purchased by the assessee from M/s Bajwa dates as mentioned in page no. 3 of the assessment order has been paid by someone to M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. for this particular plot of land which is now owned by the assessee. Copy of agreement or sale deed has been executed in between the Bajwa Developers and the assessee directly even though the assessee has furnished an agreement copy in between Bajwa Developers and Mr. Vikas Sharma dated 31.03.2011 but the subsequent relinquishment agreement in between Mr. Vikas Sharma and the assessee has not been furnished before the Tribunal. As such, in absence of any confirmation or certificate issued or obtained from Mr. Vikas Sharma, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted as foolproof.
As such, he prayed for sustaining the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that in the instant case, there is no representation by assessee before the Tribunal and the copy of agreement in between Mr. Vikas Sharma (original buyer) and the assessee has not been furnished before us. It is also stated that the sale deed has been registered directly by the Bajwa Developers in favour of the assessee but no copy is furnished before us, and even though an agreement dated 31.03.2011 has been filed before us in between Bajwa Developers and Mr. Vikas Sharma (in regional language), relating to an agreement for sale in between the parties, the fact that the particular plot subsequently, has not been filed before us and it is not ascertainable as to who has paid this amount of Rs.1,65,636/- to Mr. Bajwa Developers. Moreover, it is stated by the assessee in the grounds, that cash withdrawal by the assessee of Rs. 2 lakhs, should be considered as payments to Bajwa Developers which makes the issue contradictory. In the result, we set aside the appeal back to the files of the Assessing Officer for a limited purpose with a direction to consider the contention of the assessee that the purchase of the said land has been made in the month of April, 2012 from the original buyer Mr. Vikas Sharma, and the expenses of Rs.1.65 lakhs has been incurred by the original buyer and not by the assessee as claimed.
As such, we set aside the matter back to the files of the AO only on this limited issue and we direct the assessee to file necessary documentary evidences and to prove his contention before the AO.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 16.10.2025.