2016 (12) TMI 800 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on assessee s share on account of profit generated on arrangement of additional land - Held that - The Assessing Officer made the above addition on the basis of tripartite agreement to sell dated 29.06.2005. The ld. CIT (Appeals) noted that properties were sold by the respective persons by entering into agreement directly with M/s. Gee City Builders and assessee has never entered into any agreement with six persons for purchase of properties. This fact is also mentioned by Assessing Officer in the assessment order that sellers entered into transaction directly with the buyer M/s. Gee City Builders. If any profit is to be assessed or generated, it should be assessed in the hands of seller only. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has noted that these are agreements from individual persons for sale of property in the name of M/s. Gee City Builders. No evidence was found against the assessee that he was involved in any deal either through any document or agreement to sell. The Assessing Officer has not conducted any further inquiry to find out the involvement of assessee in any purchase and sale of land through six registered sale deeds. In the absence of any evidence on record against assessee to act as middleman or conduit, ld. CIT (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition. This ground of appeal of the revenue has no merit. Same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land.
2. Addition on account of profit earned on sale of land.
3. Addition on account of investment in registration of purchase deed.
4. Addition on account of unexplained bank credits.
5. Addition on account of profit generated from the registration of additional land.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land:
The assessee contested the addition of ?1,12,04,166/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on photocopies of forged documents found during a survey at a third party's premises. The AO relied on an agreement to sell dated 29.01.2005, which indicated a higher purchase consideration than what was recorded in the registered sale deed. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the documents were mere photocopies, not found from the assessee's premises, and the AO failed to make any inquiries from the parties involved. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, emphasizing that the photocopies had little evidentiary value and no independent inquiries were conducted to substantiate the AO's claims.

2. Addition on account of profit earned on sale of land:
The AO made an addition of ?1,44,50,000/- based on an alleged agreement to sell the land to M/s. Parsav Colonisers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The assessee denied having sold any land to this entity and argued that no inquiry was made to verify the transaction. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that there was no evidence of the land being sold to M/s. Parsav Colonisers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT confirmed this decision, noting the absence of any material evidence or inquiry to support the AO's claims.

3. Addition on account of investment in registration of purchase deed:
The AO added ?1,07,084/- as unexplained investment for registration of land, noting discrepancies in the payment records. The assessee argued that the payments were made through banking channels and were reflected in the books of account. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without a detailed examination. The ITAT remanded the issue back to the AO for reconsideration, directing a thorough review of the evidence provided by the assessee.

4. Addition on account of unexplained bank credits:
The AO added ?24,83,333/- as the assessee's 1/3rd share of unexplained cash deposits in a joint bank account. The assessee provided explanations for the deposits, which were not considered at the assessment stage. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, giving telescoping benefit of another addition, but the ITAT found this approach incorrect. The ITAT remanded the issue back to the AO for a detailed examination of the explanations and materials provided by the assessee.

5. Addition on account of profit generated from the registration of additional land:
The AO added ?32,91,383/- as the assessee's share of profit from arranging additional land for M/s. Gee City Builders, based on a tripartite agreement. The assessee argued that the agreement was not executed by them and that any profit should be assessed in the hands of the sellers. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence connecting the assessee to the transactions. The ITAT upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of any material evidence or further inquiries to substantiate the AO's claims.

Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s deletions of the additions related to unexplained investment, profit on sale of land, and profit from additional land, citing lack of evidence and proper inquiries. The issues of unexplained investment in registration and unexplained bank credits were remanded back to the AO for a detailed examination.