2017 (10) TMI 1161 - HC - Income Tax

Addition under Section 69C - Held that - We find that there was a search under Section 132 of the Act in the premises of the assessee on 05.10.2005. In the previous year to the assessment year, the assessee had purchased 60.412 cents of land from 3 persons and in the accounts, the value of the property was shown as ₹ 1,57,36,700/-. However, from the residences of the two sellers, a paper giving details of the consideration given was found and it is revealed that the actual consideration paid was ₹ 2,03,20,100/-. When confronted, two sellers confirmed the excess payment, while one denied the allegations. This led to an assessment and an addition under Section 69C and the same was confirmed by the first appellate authority. It is this order which was challenged by the assessee in the Tribunal. A reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal had followed the orders passed by it in the case of one of the sellers and it is primarily following that order the appeal was allowed.

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained investment in property under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of assessment based on a computer printout not signed by the assessee.
3. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in property in the hands of the purchaser.
4. Requirement for evidence to be obtained from the premises of the assessee and signed by the assessee for its application in assessment.
5. Interference with the assessment by the ITAT.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the addition of &8377; 54,74,200 under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2005-2006. The Tribunal held that the assessment officer was not justified in making this addition. The Revenue challenged this decision by framing questions of law for the High Court's consideration.

Issue 2:
The High Court found that there was a search under Section 132 of the Act in the premises of the assessee, revealing a difference in the consideration paid for property compared to the value shown in the accounts. The Tribunal relied on its previous order concerning one of the sellers, which was later set aside by the High Court. Due to this, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition on account of unexplained investment in property in the hands of the purchaser was based on the reliance on a previous order that had been set aside by the High Court. Therefore, the High Court decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for further consideration.

Issue 4:
Regarding the requirement for evidence to be obtained from the premises of the assessee and signed by the assessee for its application in assessment, the High Court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence and the need for proper verification. The High Court's decision to set aside the impugned order was influenced by the unreliability of the evidence and the previous conflicting judgments.

Issue 5:
The High Court concluded that due to the reliance on a previous order that had been set aside, the impugned order deserved to be set aside as well. The matter was remitted to the CIT (Appeals) for re-consideration with notice to the assessee, highlighting the importance of proper assessment procedures and the need for accurate and verified evidence in such cases.

← Previous Next →