2016 (1) TMI 29 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment under section 69B - Held that - We have considered the issue in the case of Shri Vishnuprasad S. Agarwal, who was co-owner to the extent of 75% of the plot wherein it has been unanimously held that valuation made for the purpose of stamp duty is an estimated opinion. It can be a corroborative evidence for the help of the AO, but, it cannot be conclusive piece of evidence demonstrating the unexplained investment made by the assessee for purchase of land. Solely on the basis of such estimated opinion, the addition cannot be made. From perusal of record, find that, apart from this estimated opinion, the AO was not possessing any other evidence. As far as reference made under section 50C of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that section 50C is deeming provision, which authorizes the AO to replace the sale consideration with regard to the full value of consideration disclosed by the assessee for the purpose of computing the capital gain. In that situation, the AO would replace the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee by an amount on which stamp duty was paid by the assessee. Therefore, this section is of no help while determining the unexplained investment of the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the learned Revenue authorities have failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances. The assessees have not made any unexplained investment in purchase of plots, and therefore, no additions deserve to be made. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment challenged by the assessee.
2. Addition of unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act contested by the assessee.

Issue 1 - Reopening of Assessment:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, but during the hearing, withdrew the challenge. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was upheld as the assessee did not press the ground.

Issue 2 - Addition of Unexplained Investment under Section 69B:
The Assessing Officer (AO) added an amount as unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act, which the assessee contested. The AO observed that the assessee had purchased a plot of land jointly with another individual, and the valuation cell determined the share of the assessee at a higher value than what was recorded in the purchase deed. The AO, therefore, added the difference as unexplained investment after confrontation with the assessee.

On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition. However, the ITAT examined the evidence and legal provisions closely. The ITAT referred to previous judgments and highlighted that for section 69B to apply, it must be established that the assessee made investments exceeding the recorded amounts in the books. The ITAT emphasized that stamp duty valuation alone is not sufficient evidence to deem unexplained investment.

The ITAT cited various legal precedents where it was held that stamp duty valuation is an estimate and cannot be the sole basis for adding unexplained investment. The ITAT further clarified that section 50C, which deals with deeming provisions for capital gains, cannot be extended to determine unexplained investments. The ITAT concluded that the Revenue authorities failed to provide substantial evidence beyond stamp duty valuation to justify the addition.

Based on the legal analysis and precedents, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of unexplained investment. The ITAT also noted that other grounds related to interest expenses were not pressed by the assessee due to minimal amounts involved.

In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee by allowing the appeal and deleting the addition of unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantial evidence beyond stamp duty valuation to establish unexplained investments and highlighted the limitations of deeming provisions like section 50C in such cases.