9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1319 - HC - Income TaxUndisclosed investment in property - Held that - The Tribunal recorded finding of fact that the document of possession (kabzanama) dated 16.1.1992 in respect of the house contained agreement with the vendor agreeing to pay Rs.2,60,000/- on her behalf to the Kanpur Development Authority for discharging liabilities of the vendor - The purchaser of the property were not party to the kabzanama and no amount was paid by them in cash - Decided against Revenue. Estimation of cost of construction on reference to valuation officer - Held that - The Tribunal rightly held that the appellant assessee s assessment was being made in consequence of the search - The assessment was to be limited on the basis of the material discovered or information received in the search - The A.O. could not have referred the matter and relied upon the report of the Valuation Cell to work out the unexplained investment - The A.O. could not have referred the matter and relied upon the report of the Valuation Cell to work out the unexplained investment which could be relied upon under Section 158BB - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Justification of payment of Rs. 2,60,000 not made by the assessee to the owner of the plot. 2. Justification of no unexplained investment in the construction of property. Issue 1: Payment of Rs. 2,60,000 The case involved income tax appeals where questions of law were raised concerning the payment of Rs. 2,60,000 not made by the assessee to the owner of the plot. A search revealed discrepancies in the investment in a property in Kanpur. The Valuation Cell estimated the cost of construction higher than disclosed, leading to unexplained investment. However, during the search, a 'kabzanama' document indicated the payment of Rs. 2,60,000 in cash to the transferor of the property. The Tribunal disallowed the addition, stating the amount was not paid to the owner but was a liability towards government departments. The Tribunal accepted the explanation that the assessees were not involved in the payment. Legal precedents emphasized the assessment based on evidence found during the search, limiting the A.O.'s reliance on external reports. Issue 2: Unexplained Investment in Construction Regarding the unexplained investment in the construction of the property, the A.O. estimated the cost based on the Valuation Cell's report. The Tribunal emphasized that search assessments should rely only on material seized during the search. The A.O. could not refer to the Valuation Cell's report for determining unexplained investment as there was no material found during the search to support additional expenses. Chapter XIV-B's scope limited the assessment to materials discovered during the search. Consequently, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, highlighting the A.O.'s inability to rely on external reports for additions under Section 158BB of the Act, which falls in Chapter XVI-A. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the income tax appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on both issues. The Tribunal's decisions were upheld as the A.O. could not justify the payment of Rs. 2,60,000 or the unexplained investment in the construction of the property based on evidence found during the search. The judgment emphasized the importance of limiting assessments to materials discovered during searches and restricting the A.O.'s reliance on external reports for additions in search assessments.
|
