2019 (11) TMI 1176 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition towards unexplained money - HELD THAT - As during the course of assessment proceedings the appellant was granted sufficient opportunity. He had the benefit of intervention by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Range-2, Madurai u/s 144A. Further, as requested by the appellant, the cross examination of the seller was also granted by the Assessing Officer on 21.11.2016 wherein the appellant could not disproved the fact that he had not paid ₹ 32 lakhs. The various case laws quoted by the authorised representative have been considered. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant does not get any support from the cited case laws. CIT(A) decided the issue based on facts and circumstances, which remain undisputed. Since the assessee has not laid any material for the alleged duress, the original statement made by the assessee with the corroborating evidences from the seller side clinches the issue in favor of the Revenue. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the assessee s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A) order for AY 2013-14; Addition of unexplained money; Burden of proof on transferor; Failure to provide evidence by transferor; Reopening of assessment; Cross-examination of seller; Consent letter by assessee; Assessment completion; Appeal to ITAT Chennai.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for the assessment year 2013-14, disputing the addition of ?4,32,355 as 'unexplained money'. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition and failed to consider relevant legal precedents. The appellant contended that the burden of proof was on the transferor, who failed to provide evidence that the funds deposited in his family members' accounts were received from the appellant. The appellant also claimed that the acceptance of the seller's statement was made under duress, but could not substantiate this claim with evidence.

The seller, in a sworn statement, disclosed that the property was sold for ?32 lakhs, with cash payments made on the date of registration. The seller provided bank statements showing the cash deposits, corroborating the sale consideration. The appellant, after being shown the seller's statement and evidence, accepted the correctness of the transaction. Despite requesting cross-examination of the seller, the appellant could not disprove the payment of ?32 lakhs. The Joint Commissioner, in a direction under section 144A, upheld the validity of the seller's statement and directed the assessment to proceed.

The Assessing Officer, relying on the seller's statement and documentary evidence, completed the assessment by adding the disputed amount. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment, noting the overwhelming evidence supporting the undisclosed income addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of material substantiating the alleged duress and the appellant's acceptance of the transaction details provided by the seller. The ITAT Chennai upheld the CIT(A) decision, stating that the appellant failed to provide any evidence contradicting the seller's statement and supporting the Revenue's position.

In conclusion, the ITAT Chennai dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming the assessment order based on the uncontested facts and evidence presented. The decision highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with evidence and upheld the assessment of the undisclosed amount as per the seller's statement and corroborating bank transactions.