Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order for Assessment Year 2016-17, arising from proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 144. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 28,90,000/- as unexplained under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE, related to the purchase of an immovable property, where a sum of Rs. 38,61,034/- remained unexplained. The assessee provided explanations citing various individuals, which were rejected by the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal considered the assessee's grounds and the Revenue's contentions. While not fully agreeing with either party, it found that the assessee had provided evidence explaining the source of funds. Taking into account the socio-economic status of the assessee and relatives, a lump sum addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- was deemed just and proper, without setting a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 28,90,000/- as unexplained investment was justified, and whether Section 115BBE was applicable for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056687061(1) dated 30.09.2023, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel representing assessee presses for the assessee’s sole substantive ground on merits that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in ./2023 Shailendra Kumar adding an amount of Rs.28,90,000/- as unexplained u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The assessee infact appears to have purchased an immovable property during the relevant financial year for Rs.1,11,57,000/- out of which he could not explained a sum of Rs.38,61,034/- as per para 2 of the assessment order dated 21.03.2022. He then stated to have received varying sums inter alia from Smt. Malti Devi, Smt. Kamlesh Devi, sh. Lalit Mohan, Sh. Bireridra Singh and Sh. Shalendra Yadav which was rejected by the Assessing Officer and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. All this leaves the assessee aggrieved.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contentions reiterating their respective stands. We find no reason to express our concurrence with either party’s arguments in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee all along has filed his cogent and supportive evidence explaining source of the above stated parties which could not be simply brushed aside as has been done by the learned lower authorities.
Faced with this situation and keeping in mind the assessee’s and his relatives’ socio economic status, we are of the considered view that a lump sum addition of Rs.12,00,000/- ./2023 Shailendra Kumar only in the given facts, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee is accordingly held entitled for relief of Rs.16,90,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under normal provisions only.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03/02/2025.