2021 (12) TMI 1135 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - difference in the purchase value of the properties as compared to the value fitted by Stamp Duty Authority - applicability of amendment brought to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 - HELD THAT - The said Act was brought at theeginning of the FY-2013-14 and received assent by the President of India on 10.05.2013 which shows that the Finance Act, 2013 was enacted at the beginning of FY-2013-14 which will be applicable to the AY-2014-15. Therefore, the plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the amended provisions would be applicable for AY-2015-16, in our view, is not correct, hence not tenable. However, the ld. CIT(A) under the wrong presumption went on to hold that the said provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were explanatory and hence retrospectively applicable. Though we agree with that, the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act would be applicable for the assessment year under consideration however, the reasoning given by the ld. CIT(A) in our view, was not correct, rather it was a simple case where the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were directly applicable for the assessment year under consideration. In view of the above observations, we do not find merit in these grounds raised by the assessee/appellant and the same are accordingly decided against the assessee. Unexplained investment on purchase of the property - AO noticed that the assessee paid cash amount of ₹6,04,968/- in relation to the purchase of the aforementioned properties - HELD THAT - During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee argued that no such cash payment has been made for the purchase of the property. However, the assessee failed to submit any explanation regarding the source of the amount paid for the purchase of the property. In view of this, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. Before us, neither anyone appeared nor any document filed to show the source of the cash payment made for the purchase of the property. In view of this, we do not find merit on this issue also. Hence these grounds are also decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
2. Addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for difference in property value
3. Applicability of amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
4. Addition of unexplained investment in property purchase

Issue 1: Appeal against CIT(A) Order
The assessee appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 16.01.2018, raising multiple grounds challenging the dismissal of the appeal without considering legal provisions and judicial decisions objectively. Despite repeated notices, no appearance was made on behalf of the assessee, leading to the Tribunal deciding the appeal on merits after hearing the Departmental Representative.

Issue 2: Addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)
The assessee contested the additions of &8377;6,63,329/- and &8377;43,45,222/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO found discrepancies between the purchase value of properties and the values assessed by the Stamp Duty Officer. The CIT(A) upheld the additions, considering the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) as clarificatory and applicable for the relevant assessment year, contrary to the assessee's argument that they were not applicable for the year in question.

Issue 3: Applicability of Amended Provisions
The Tribunal analyzed the Finance Act, 2013 and determined that the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were applicable for the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the provisions were retrospective, stating that they were directly applicable for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee against the additions made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).

Issue 4: Unexplained Investment Addition
The AO added &8377;6,04,968/- as unexplained investment in property purchase due to cash payments made by the assessee. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of the cash amount paid for property purchase. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the addition, as the assessee could not substantiate the source of the cash payment, leading to the dismissal of the grounds raised against this addition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the additions made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and the unexplained investment addition. The Tribunal's decision was based on the applicability of the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the failure of the assessee to provide adequate explanations regarding the cash payments made for property purchases.