Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s. Elcom Global Ventures LLP, a real estate firm, filed its return for AY 2012-13. The assessment was reopened under Section 147/148, and the AO made an addition of Rs. 15,14,33,100 for unexplained purchases, claiming non-compliance from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition, finding that the assessee had submitted all required details and documents via the ITBA portal, which the AO had overlooked.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the assessee had indeed filed the necessary details and evidences through the ITBA portal, which the Assessing Officer failed to consider during the assessment proceedings. Recognizing that the AO had not verified these details, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. AO for a de novo adjudication, directing him to consider the previously filed evidences in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of unexplained purchases without a remand report, particularly when the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence filed via the ITBA portal during reassessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
139, 147, 148, 143(3), 143(2), 142(1), Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI
O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: The appeal in AY 2012-13, arises out of the 1. order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058356447(1) dated 30.11.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 08.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- 2.
“1.That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in violating provision of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule for not calling for Remand report when AO has not received any submission from assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.
That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred deleting the addition of Rs 15,14,33,100/- made by the AO on account of unexplained purchases. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the entities from whom the assessee firm has borrowed huge amount of funds, therefore the same remained questioned and unexplained.”
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available 3. on record. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of real estate. The return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed on 28-03-2013 under section 139 of the Act. The case of the assessee was sought to be reopened under section 147 of the Act vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 30-3-2019. The assessee filed return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act on 23-09-2019 declaring total income of Rs Nil and requested for providing the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Learned AO duly provided the reasons for reopening vide letter dated 3-10-2019 to the assessee. The reopening was initiated by the Learned AO based on the information received from ITO ward 1(2) Ghaziabad that assessee had an immovable property transaction of Rs 1,48,00,000. Notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act stood issued to the assessee. Various replies were filed by the assessee before the Learned AO in response to various questionnaires issued by the Learned AO. The Learned AO vide notice under Section 142(1) of the Act sought 4. details of complete purchases of Rs. 15,14,33,100. According to Learned AO, the said notice was not complied with by the assessee, which lead the Learned AO to add the sum of Rs.15,14,33,100 as unexplained purchases for want of documentary evidences. The re-assessment was completed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 15,14,33,100. The assessee submitted before the Learned CITA that detailed replies by furnishing the complete details of purchases were indeed filed by the assessee before the Learned AO itself in response to Questionnaire dated 1-12-2019. The very same details were again furnished by the assessee before the Learned CITA. The complete details of amounts received from partners of the LLP and from others were also furnished by the assessee before the Learned AO. The assessee furnished the complete bank account details of Union Bank of India before the Learned AO. The assessee had also furnished the complete details of current liabilities in the format prescribed by the Learned AO. These details were again furnished by the assessee before the Learned CITA. The assessee had filed the complete bank statements showing the payment and sources for the sum of Rs. 15,14,33,100 in the following format together with their respective sources thereon as under:-
S. Name and Date of Payment Amount Source of Payment Date of No. Address of the Cleared/withdrawa Registered Property ls. from deed purchased bankaccount 1. H.No.2012, 04.04.2011 90,00,000/- Opening balance in 12.07.2011 Sector 15, (Purchase bank account from Chandigarh Price) amount received as loan from Three CInfratech Pvt. Ltd. in the F.Y. 2010-11 in the m/o March 2011 11.05.2011 90,00,000/- Opening balance in (Purchase bank account from Price) amount received as loan from Three CInfratech Pvt. Ltd. in the F.Y. 2010-11 in the m/o March 2011 04.07.2011 9,00,000/- Opening balance in (Stamp Duty) bank account from amount received as loan from Three CInfratech Pvt. Ltd. in the F.Y. 2010-11 in the m/o March 2011 23.09.2011 Opening balance in 1,80,000/- and bank account from net of TDS is amount received as Rs. 1,62,000/- loan from Three (Commission) CInfratech Pvt. Ltd in the F.Y. 2010-11 in the m/o March 2011 TOTAL (A) 1,90,80,000/-^ 2. H. No.2308, 10.05.2011 1,48,00,000/- Opening balance in 13.05.2011 Sector 35-C, (Purchase bank account from Chandigarh Price) amount received as loanfrom Three CInfratech Pvt. Ltd in the F.Y. 2010-11 in the m/o March 2011 10.05.2011 Opening balance in bank account from 7,55,000/- out amount received as of loan from Three Rs.8,00,000/- CInfratech Pvt. Ltd. (Stamp Duty in the F.Y. 2010-11 and Regd. in the m/o March 2011 Charges) 23.09.2011 Opening balance in bank account from 1,48,000/- and amount received as net of TDS is loan from Three Rs. 1,33,200/- CInfratech Pvt. Ltd. (Commission) in the F.Y. 2010-11 in the m/o March 2011 TOTAL (B) 1,57,03,000/- 3. W-81, GKII, 30.03.2011 From amount 9.05.2011 NewDelhi received as loan 11,00,00,000/- from Three (Purchase CInfratech Pvt. Ltd. Price) in the F.Y. 2010-11 in the m/o March 2011 28.04.2011 From amount received as loan 66,00,000/- from Three (Stamp Duty CInfratech Pvt. Ltd. and Regd. in the F.Y. 2010-11 Charges) in the m/o March 2011 06.05.2011 From amount 50,100/- received as loan (Stamp Duty from Three C and Infratech Pvt. Ltd. in Regd. the F.Y. 2010-11 in Charges) the m/o March 2011 TOTAL (C) 11,66,50,100/- GRANDTOTAL 15,14,33,100/- (A+B+C)
The assessee further explained the transactions by stating as under:- 5.
From the above facts, it is very clear that out of total payments of Rs.15,14,33,100/- the amount of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- was paid in the earlier F.Y.2010-11 (This amount was shown under the head Loans & advances at Relevant Page 4 S.N.3(b) of ITR Form showing total amount of Rs. 11,00,00,000/-out of Rs 12,00,00,000 attached at Annexure “B”) and the balance money of Rs.4,14,33,100/- has been paid in F.Y. 2011-12 and all such money was received from Three C Infratech Pvt Ltd and Parleen Chopra in the earlier F.Y. 2010-11.In the year under consideration no new loans have been taken as is also clear from:”
The Learned CITA observed that the entire details had been duly filed by 6. the assessee on 3-12-2019 in the ITBA portal and appreciated the fact that no fresh loan was received by the assessee during the year under consideration and that, out of the total payments of Rs. 15,14,33,100, an amount of Rs. 11 crores was paid in financial year 2010-11 which was shown under the head ‘loans and advances’ in the balance sheet and the balance money of Rs. 4,14,33,100 has been paid in financial year 2011-12 out of monies received from Three C InfraTech Private Limited and Perlin Chopra, which were received in financial year 2010-11. Hence the borrowings were made in earlier years, the payments for purchase of properties were made partly in assessment year 11-12 and partly in assessment year 12-13. The Learned CITA deleted the addition made by the Learned AO by observing as under:-
6.2. Carefully considered the submission of the appellant in view of the impugned assessment order. Also perused and considered the details and documents uploaded by the appellant on ITBA portal during the appellant proceedings. Went through the case laws referred to and relied upon by the appellant. 6.3. The appellant firm was engaged in the business of real estate. During the Assessment Year under reference the appellant firm did not show any sale but showed purchase of land for Rs. 15,14,33,100/-. A perusal of a copy of the audited Balance Sheet of the appellant firm for AY under reference shows that the opening balance of stock in trade was Rs. 9,01,66,500/- and during the year purchases of Rs.15,14,33,100/-was made, against which no sale has been shown by the appellant. Accordingly, the closing balance of stock in trade has been shown at Rs. 24,22,11,121/-. Vide questionnaire and a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, dt. 01.12.2019 ld. AO raised detailed queries in a tabulated format about the purchases made during the year along with the detail of the source of funds used for the purchases. Ld. AO also asked about the bank accounts maintained by the appellant firm along with a copy of the complete bank statement of those bank accounts. The date for compliance was fixed for 04.12.2019. Ld. AO has maintained in the impugned assessment order that the appellant did not file any reply, detail or document as called for from him vide abovementioned notice. Further, ld. AO issued a show cause notice on 06.12.2019 fixing the date for compliance on 08.12.2022.In the impugned assessment order ld. AO has maintained that no reply was filed by the appellant till the date of passing the captioned assessment order dated 08.12.2019. 6.4. In the written submission uploaded on ITBA portal the appellant has submitted that it had furnished complete reply along with details and documents on 03.12.2019 as per the format and tables required by the ld. AO. The appellant has submitted that it had filed the above submissions through ITBA Portal on 03.12.2019 vide acknowledgement Number 03121912479914. During the appellate proceedings the appellant furnished a copy of system generated acknowledgement bearing number 03121912479914 and comprising the detail of the documents furnished by the appellant on 03.12.2019. From these facts of the case, it transpires that the ld. AO, due to an oversight did not check the ITBA Portal before passing the impugned assessment order. 6.5. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant firm filed a reply in the form of paper book, comprising complete copy of the reply dated 03.12.2019 along with the covering letter uploaded by it on 03.12.2019 during the assessment proceedings. A perusal of the above reply shows that the appellant had filed a point wise reply to the notice u/s 142(1) dated 01.12.2019. The appellant had provided the details of all three properties purchased during the year, in a tabulated format, as desired by the ld. AO. The aggregate cost of the property purchased is Rs.15,14,33,100/-The appellant firm furnished the copies of bank statements showing and highlighting the date wise payments made against the property purchased. Further, the appellant has furnished copies of all purchase/ sale deeds of the property purchased by it during the year under reference. 6.6. Regarding the source of funds out of which payments were made against the purchase of the properties under reference, the appellant has submitted that it had taken loans from the two parties, namely M/s Three C Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 23,30,00,000and Parleen Chopra Rs. 2,50,00,000. A perusal of the balance sheet of the appellant it appears that the said loans have been shown under the head current liabilities and entire amount is appearing as opening balance. During the AY under reference no unsecured loan was obtained by the appellant firm. Ld. AO also has not raised any query about the unsecured loan received in the immediate preceding previous year. 6.7. The impugned addition was made by the ld. AO on account of purchases made by the appellant during the year under reference for the alleged reason that it did not file any reply against queries raised by the ld. AO vide notice dt. 01.12.2019. But this is the matter of fact that the appellant had not only filed a reply on 03.12.2019, before the given date (i.e. 04.12.2019) for compliance with, but also furnished complete details and documents as asked for by the ld. AO. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the ld. AO did not take cognizance of the reply filed by the appellant. During the appellant proceedings, I have perused the reply filed by the appellant in view of the queries raised by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. Since the appellant has substantiated the issue raised by the ld. AO, I am of the considered opinion that the addition made by the ld. AO does not have any cogent basis. Therefore, Id. AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 15,14,33,100/- made by him on account of purchases made by the appellant firm during the assessment year under reference. Accordingly, grounds no. 3 and 4 of the appeal are allowed.
We find that the revenue had challenged the order of the Learned CITA 7. by stating that he had admitted additional evidences filed by the assessee before the Learned CITA and that no remand report was sought from the Learned AO. We find at the outset that no fresh details or additional evidences were filed before the Learned CITA. All the details were already filed by the assessee through the ITBA portal during the course of assessment proceedings itself which were not looked into by the Learned AO while framing the assessment. Since, the Learned AO had not made verification of the aforesaid details with evidences, we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fair play, to restore this appeal to the file of the Learned AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law in the light of aforesaid evidences filed by the assessee. Accordingly the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical 8. purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30/12/2025.