Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Vikas Arora, purchased an immovable property jointly with his father for Rs 32,50,000/- during the assessment year 2012-13. The AO made an addition of Rs 16,25,000/- (assessee's 50% share) as unexplained investment under sections 144/147. Subsequently, the father's assessment for the same property was completed under sections 143(3) r.w.s 147, where his source of investment of Rs 31,50,000/- was accepted.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the father's assessment, which accepted the source of investment for the jointly purchased property, was completed after the assessee's assessment. Considering this, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue of unexplained investment to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in light of the assessment framed for the assessee's father. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs 16,25,000/- as unexplained investment in jointly purchased property, particularly when the father's source of investment for the same property was accepted in his subsequent assessment.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI
ORDER This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054148582(1) dated 05/07/2023 against the order passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)5, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 08/11/2019.
Vikas Arora vs. ITO 2. The Ground Nos.1,3 & 4 raised by the assessee are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.
The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Rs 16,25,000/- towards unexplained investment in purchase of property jointly with father in the facts and circumstances of the case.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is an individual and had filed his original return of income for the Asst Year 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs 1,99,270/-. It is not in dispute that the assessee had made jointly purchased an immovable property with his father Shri Mohinder Pratap Arora for Rs 32,50,000/- on 27.3.2012. Information was received in AIR regarding the said transaction by the ld. AO from the Sub-Registrar- IV, Ghaziabad. The assessee was sought to be reopened in the case of the assessee vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The validity of reopening of assessment is not in challenge before me. The ld. AO concluded that the source for purchase of immovable property by the assessee to the tune of Rs 16,25,000/- (assessee’s 50% share) remained unexplained and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee vide assessment framed u/s 144/147 of the Act dated 8.11.2019. Parallely, the assessment of the father Shri Mohinder Pratap Arora for the Asst Year 2012-13 was also framed by the ITO Ward 70(3), New Delhi u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 27.11.2019, wherein Page 2 of 4 Vikas Arora vs. ITO the very same transaction was sought to be examined as he was also the 50% owner of the property. The Assessing Officer in the case of the father had accepted the source for investment in property in the hands of the father of the assessee to the tune of Rs 31,50,000/-. Since the assessment of the father was completed subsequent to completion of assessment in the hands of the assessee herein, I deem it fit and appropriate to restore this issue to the file of ld. AO for fresh adjudication in the light of the assessment framed in the hands of the assessee’s father. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd January, 2024.