2017 (12) TMI 1862 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of on money towards purchase of the property (including commission) - HELD THAT - As the details mentioned against the amount are clearly at variance as against that of the property under consideration therefore there was no occasion for the A.O to have acted upon the said impugned notings in context of the purchase of the property under consideration. We have further perused the notings marked as Commission of the impounded document and though find that as against the term Commission certain amounts are found mentioned but are unable to comprehend as to how such dumb notings have been related to the purchase of the property under consideration. Thus here is no basis for relating the notings in the impounded document with the purchase of Flat by the assessee therefore are of the considered view that the addition made by the A.O u/s 69 and sustained by the CIT(A) cannot be upheld. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reassessment under Sections 147/148.
2. Addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- under Section 69 for alleged "on money" paid for the purchase of a flat.
3. Evidential value of loose papers found during the survey.
4. Existence of other evidence disproving the receipt of "on money."
5. Confirmation of interest levied under Sections 234A/B/C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Reassessment under Sections 147/148:
The appellant did not press this ground of appeal. Consequently, it was dismissed as not pressed.

2. Addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- under Section 69:
The core issue was the addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- based on documents impounded during a survey on M/s Dev Sharda Developers Pvt. Ltd., which allegedly indicated that the appellant paid "on money" for purchasing Flat No. 2002 at Kent Garden, Borivali (W), Mumbai. The Assessing Officer (A.O) concluded that the appellant paid Rs. 76,00,000/- (including brokerage) for the flat, as opposed to Rs. 29,00,000/- declared by the appellant. The A.O inferred this from Annexure A-2, Pages 37 and 105, which mentioned Rs. 72,50,000/- against "1120" multiplied by six thousand and certain cash commissions. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of cash payments noted in the impounded document.

3. Evidential Value of Loose Papers:
The appellant contested that the addition was based solely on loose papers found during the survey, which had no evidential value. The appellant argued that the figure "1120" in the impounded document did not match the flat’s area (68 Sq. mtrs or 732 Sq. ft) and thus could not pertain to the property in question. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the area discrepancy distanced the property from the impounded document's workings. The Tribunal concluded that the A.O's inference of "on money" payment was baseless and speculative.

4. Existence of Other Evidence Disproving the Receipt of "on money":
The appellant provided the registered agreement for the flat purchase, showing the consideration of Rs. 29,00,000/-, which was higher than the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 21,00,000/-. The Tribunal found no basis for the A.O to relate the impounded document's notings to the flat purchase, especially given the area discrepancy and lack of concrete evidence linking the notings to the property. The Tribunal also noted the impounded document was unsigned and the appellant never admitted its contents related to the flat purchase.

5. Confirmation of Interest Levied under Sections 234A/B/C:
The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was deemed consequential. The A.O was directed to recompute the interest after giving effect to the Tribunal's directions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleting the Rs. 47,00,000/- addition under Section 69. The Tribunal found that the addition was based on speculative and baseless grounds without concrete evidence linking the impounded document's notings to the flat purchase. The interest levied under Sections 234A/B/C was to be recomputed accordingly.