AKSHAY DILIP NAHAR,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 953/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as there was no evidence of on-money payment or invocation of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). The rectification deed did not alter the original purchase date, making the addition for the subsequent assessment year invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a capital asset for Rs. 12.55 lakhs, but the stamp duty value was Rs. 66.30 lakhs. The lower authorities made an addition of the difference as unexplained investment. The purchase deed was executed on 31.03.2017, with a rectification deed later in the year.

What were the issues?

Whether the difference between the actual purchase price and the stamp duty value of a capital asset can be added as unexplained investment when no on-money payment is proved and the relevant section for deeming income was not invoked. Whether a rectification deed executed after the financial year of purchase can justify an addition in a subsequent assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 25.04.2024Pronounced: 07.05.2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.953/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Shri Akshay Dilip Nahar, The Income Tax Officer, Gut No.141/3, Watur- vs. Ward-1, Aaykar Bhavan, Partur Road, Near Siraswadi Road, Near TV Saibaba Temple, JALNA. Centre, JALNA - 431 213. PIN – 431 203. Maharashtra. PAN AOXPN7898G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Smt. Deepa Khare For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee‟s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi‟s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1054771223(1), dated 01.08.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee‟s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities

2 ITA.No.953/PUN./2023 action making addition of Rs.53.75 lakhs; Smt. Khare invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion affirming assessment findings to this effect as under :

3 ITA.No.953/PUN./2023

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions against and in support of the impugned addition. The Revenue vehemently argued in light of the assessment findings that the Assessing Officer has rightly made sec.69 unexplained investment(s) addition in light of the actual purchase price of Rs.12.55 lakhs as against the stamp value taken of Rs.66.30 lakhs, of the „capital asset‟ concerned. It is in this factual backdrop that we do not see any dispute on facts regarding the foregoing two crucial aspects herein i.e., the assessee having paid the actual purchase price of Rs.12.55 lakhs regarding the „capital asset‟ i.e., S.No.310 (Old) and 249/2 (New). There is again no quarrel that the state government‟s registration department had adopted stamp value thereof of Rs.66.30 lakhs. Suffice to say, the department‟s stand is that the impugned differential sum ought to be assessed as assessee‟s unexplained investment money by the Assessing Officer‟s reasoning. We find no merit in Revenue‟s instant arguments since there is not even an iota of allegation either in the assessment order or in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion that the assessee had actually paid any 4 ITA.No.953/PUN./2023 on-money over and above the purchase price of Rs.12.55 lakhs or conversion charges of Rs.3,53,000/- in the relevant previous year. This is indeed coupled with the corresponding clinching statutory provision in sec.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) treating such a difference as “income from other sources” had nowhere been invoked in the assessment findings.

4.

Learned DR at this state quoted sec.251(1)(a) of the Act that the CIT(A)'s herein enjoys co-terminus powers with that of the Assessing Officer wherein he has duly invoked sec.56(2) (supra) in the lower appellate discussion. We find no merit in the Revenue‟s instant arguments in light of CIT vs. Sardarilal & Co. [2001] 251 ITR 864 (Del.); CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC); Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Del.) that the CIT(A) does not have jurisdiction to change any head of income during the course of lower appellate proceedings. We thus reject the Revenue‟s vehement contentions in very terms.

4.1. It has further come on record that the assessee had in fact purchased the „capital asset‟ in issue vide registered deed dated 31.03.2017 followed by it‟s correction/rectification deed finalised by the registration authorities on 15.07.2017. The said rectification was only to the limited extent of change in correction of the survey number from 261 to 310 (old) and 249/2 (New) which also involved payment of extra conversion

5 ITA.No.953/PUN./2023 charges. The Revenue‟s case is that once this correction deed was finalised in F.Y. 2017-2018 relevant to assessment year 2018-2019; both the learned lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition. We find no merit in the Revenue‟s instant latter arguments as well as the purchase deed herein stood duly executed on 31.03.2017 relevant to assessment year 2017-2018 and both the lower authorities could not have made the impugned addition merely going by some rectification hereinabove initiated for recovery of stamp charges only. We thus accept the assessee‟s corresponding grounds challenging the impugned addition in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee‟s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 07.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →