Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for assessment year 2011-12. The appeal involved proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press legal grounds. Regarding the addition of Rs.3,50,93,000/- for unexplained investment in immovable property, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of actual purchase price being Rs.30,42,517/- as per the sale deed. The addition was considered an extrapolation.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs.3,50,93,000/- on account of unexplained investment in immovable property is justified when the actual purchase price is significantly lower and requires verification.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049491606(1), dated 10.02.2023, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Learned counsel submits very fairly that the assessee does not wish to press his legal grounds. Rejected accordingly.
Next comes the latter issue on merits wherein both the learned lower authorities have made unexplained investment addition of Rs.3,50,93,000/- on account of purchase of immovable property on 03.03.2011 in assessee’s hands. Learned counsel invites our attention to relevant sale deed executed between the parties (at page 31 onwards of the paper book), stating actual purchase price at Rs.30,42,517/- only. This clinching fact has gone un- rebutted from Revenue side in principle. We, thus, see no merit in the impugned addition of Rs.3,50,93,000/-, as this is an instance of extrapolation of the relevant figures only. Faced with this situation, learned counsel refers to assessee’s additional evidence as well explaining source of his impugned investment which requires verification at the Assessing Officer’s level. We thus, restore the instant limited issue to this extent only back to the Assessing Officer for his factual verification as per law.
No other ground or issue has been raised or pressed before us.
6 . This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 11TH February, 2025.