9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 756 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained Addition u/s 69 mis match of dates as mentioned in the bokiyam agreements and in the statements recorded from the tenants - Held that - It remains a fact that each of the persons, who were examined had confirmed the payment of bokiyam there is a fair chance that when statements were recorded, concerned tenant could have made a mistake as to the exact dates of payments. None of the authorities sought any explanation from the assessee for the mismatch of dates. None of the authorities sought any explanation from the assessee for the mismatch of dates. Assessee had produced affidavits, which was not considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). Assessee has to be given a chance for explaining the mismatch of dates and justify how the bokiyam receipts could be considered as a source of investment for the supri street property - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues:
Stay of recovery of a demand arising from an assessment for the assessment year 2008-09. Analysis: The appellant, engaged in the business of jewellery making, filed a Stay Petition seeking to stay the recovery of a demand of Rs.14,09,411/- resulting from an assessment for the year 2008-09. The appellant also appealed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) order, which dismissed the appeal against additions made in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer noted discrepancies in the source of investment for two properties purchased by the appellant during the relevant year. While the source for one property was accepted, a sum of Rs.22,70,000/- for the other property was disallowed under Section 69 of the Act due to discrepancies in dates related to bokiyam agreements. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision based on the remand report and disparities in dates provided by the tenants. The appellant contended that they were not given an opportunity to explain the date disparities and requested a chance to clarify the mismatch. The ITAT found that the appellant should be given an opportunity to explain the date discrepancies and justify the source of investment for the property in question. The ITAT set aside the orders below regarding the addition made for the property and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, allowing the appellant a fair chance to represent their case. The ITAT acknowledged the discrepancies in dates between bokiyam agreements, tenant statements, and affidavits. The ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer accepted the source of investment for one property but disbelieved the source for the other property due to date discrepancies. The ITAT emphasized that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to explain the date mismatches, which was not provided by the authorities. The ITAT observed that the Assessing Officer made the addition based on the dates in bokiyam agreements being after the property registration date, without considering the appellant's affidavits. Consequently, the ITAT decided to give the appellant a chance to clarify the date disparities and justify the source of investment for the property. The ITAT set aside the previous decisions and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, ensuring the appellant receives a fair opportunity to present their case. As a result of allowing the appeal for statistical purposes, the Stay Petition filed by the appellant was deemed infructuous. The ITAT pronounced the order in open court, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes while dismissing the Stay Petition.
|
