2009 (3) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained deposits sale of properties - ITAT has noted that declaration for purpose of capital account, in Form 2-B, has been made by assessee - since the transaction was through banking channels, ITAT deleted the additions - ITAT opined that the investments shown by the Assessee stand fully corroborated by documentary evidence - onus whether the Assessee had received more consideration than what was stated in the documents of transfer rested on the Revenue additions were rightly deleted

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of unexplained deposits in the Assessee's account.
2. Valuation of properties and addition made by the Assessing Officer.
3. Deletion of another addition of unexplained deposits in the Assessee's bank account.

Issue 1: Deletion of unexplained deposits in the Assessee's account:
The first issue before the court was the deletion by the ITAT of an addition of Rupees 1,79,435 as unexplained deposits in the Assessee's account. The Assessee claimed that the amount was from the sale of a plot of land, which was supported by a declaration for the purpose of capital account. The ITAT found the transaction to be through banking channels and thus justified the deletion. The Revenue argued that the Conveyance documents were not in order. The court held that unless the findings of the ITAT were perverse, the court should not interfere, citing precedent. The court found no perversity in the ITAT's conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Valuation of properties and addition made by the Assessing Officer:
The second issue involved the valuation of certain properties where the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rupees 4,56,450 based on the difference between the Assessee's valuation and the valuation carried out by the AO. The ITAT accepted the Assessee's valuation, noting the lack of evidence to show any consideration beyond the stated sale consideration. The court referred to the burden on the Revenue to establish any undisclosed consideration, as per legal precedents. The ITAT's decision was upheld as a factual determination that the court should not interfere with.

Issue 3: Deletion of another addition of unexplained deposits in the Assessee's bank account:
The third issue was the deletion by the ITAT of an addition of Rupees 2,00,000 as unexplained deposits in the Assessee's bank account. The Assessee claimed the amount was from a property sale, which the Revenue contested as inconceivable based on the purchase date. The ITAT found no error in the Assessee's explanation, noting the transactions were through banking channels and that the AO failed to make inquiries. The court emphasized that the controversy revolved around questions of fact, and as such, upheld the ITAT's decision. Legal precedents were cited to highlight the burden on the Revenue to prove any undisclosed consideration.

In conclusion, the court found no substantial question of law to consider and dismissed the appeal, affirming the ITAT's decisions on all three issues. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual determinations by the ITAT and the burden on the Revenue to establish any undisclosed considerations in such cases.