2020 (5) TMI 301 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in the commercial property by assessee HUF - deduction u/s 80C denied - AR submitted that the entire family is earning a handsome amount either in individual parity or as HUF and entire cash amount is out of disclosed declared sources - HELD THAT - CIT(A) observed that since no withdrawal was shown in the return of income by the HUF, therefore, it is difficult to believe that the HUF has contributed for the household expenses of the assessee. Besides that the CIT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee that the assessee required the cash in hand for his probable medical expenses. But the fact remains that the assessee has also explained the introduction capital of ₹ 8,25,505/- as capital by stating that he had received money from his father in law of ₹ 5,00,000/-, amount transferred from minor son saving bank account of ₹ 1,41,800/-, amount transferred from minor daughter s saving account of ₹ 23,000/-, amount transferred from wife s saving account of ₹ 63,000/- apart from dividend income and mutual fund receipts. AO as well as CIT(A) both did not look into the evidences brought on record by the assessee. The CIT(A) also has not given any cogent reason as to why said addition sustains. In fact, the observation of the CIT(A), that no documentary evidence was shown in respect of father in law and wife is incorrect and needs to be verified. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the evidences which were produced by the assessee before the CIT(A). Ground allowed for statistical purpose. CIT(A) was rightly rejected the deduction u/s 80C of the Act.

Issues Involved:

1. Sustaining the order of assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act.
2. Addition on account of alleged unexplained investment in commercial property.
3. Addition to the capital account of the assessee.
4. Denial of deduction under section 80C.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Levy of interest under section 234A and section 234B.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustaining the order of assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act:

The assessee contested the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and the completion of assessment under section 143(3)/147, arguing that statutory pre-conditions were not satisfied. However, the tribunal dismissed this ground as the assessee did not press it during the hearing.

2. Addition on account of alleged unexplained investment in commercial property:

The Assessing Officer (AO) received information from ADIT (Inv) about the assessee’s cash investment in a commercial property at Indirapuram Habitat Centre, Ghaziabad. During a search operation on M/s AEZ Group, documents indicated cash payments by investors, including the assessee. The AO added ?15,17,380 to the assessee’s income due to incomplete details of investment sources. The tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not adequately consider the cash flow statements and other evidence provided by the assessee. The tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, instructing to verify the evidence and provide a fair hearing.

3. Addition to the capital account of the assessee:

The AO added ?8,25,505 to the assessee’s income, citing unexplained additions to the capital account. The assessee claimed these funds were received from family members and other sources, but the AO and CIT(A) did not fully consider the provided evidence. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) incorrectly stated that no documentary evidence was shown and remanded the matter back to the AO to verify the evidence and reassess the addition.

4. Denial of deduction under section 80C:

The assessee claimed a deduction under section 80C amounting to ?50,000, which the AO disallowed for lack of evidence. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to reject this deduction, as the assessee did not provide the necessary documentation.

5. Violation of principles of natural justice:

The assessee argued that the assessment was completed without providing a fair opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The tribunal acknowledged that the assessee’s counsel could not attend a crucial hearing due to illness and that the AO completed the assessment without granting additional time. The tribunal remanded the matter to ensure a fair hearing and proper consideration of all evidence.

6. Levy of interest under section 234A and section 234B:

The assessee contested the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B. The tribunal deemed this ground consequential and did not adjudicate upon it at this juncture, leaving it to be addressed following the reassessment.

Conclusion:

The tribunal partly allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, remanding the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication with instructions to verify the evidence and ensure a fair hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The denial of deduction under section 80C was upheld, and the issue of interest levy was left to be addressed post-reassessment.

← Previous Next →