2022 (3) TMI 564 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted sale consideration - undisclosed income - assessee could not able to prove receipt of ₹ 2,44,166/- by the sellers during the ex-parte assessment proceedings, as well as before the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) even after lapse of four years from the date of sale registration - HELD THAT - Addition to the extent of ₹ 2,44,166/- which has not been shown as receipt by one of the sellers i.e. father of the assessee herein. The assessee has neither proved with supporting evidence about the receipt of outstanding sale proceeds by the seller, nor able to show whether the same was taxed in the hands of persons involved in the transaction. Thus, the assessee has not discharged his onus before the Income-tax authorities or before us. This factual aspect was verified by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not call for our intervention, and therefore, ground No. 1 of the appeal is rejected.

Issues:
Assessment of undisclosed income from property sale
Confirmation of addition of undisclosed income by CIT(A)
Confirmation of stamp duty addition by CIT(A)
Burden of proof on the assessee regarding receipt of sale proceeds

Analysis:

Assessment of undisclosed income from property sale:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee, an individual and partner in a firm, declared total income at ?7,67,300. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the disclosure of investment and income related to properties. The assessing officer (AO) observed that the assessee, as a Power Attorney holder, sold land and failed to comply with notices seeking information. Consequently, the unaccounted sale consideration of ?84,60,000 was added to the total income under the head "income from other sources."

Confirmation of addition of undisclosed income by CIT(A):
Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted bank statements of sellers, showing that the sale proceeds were directly received by them. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted a substantial amount from the addition, stating that the money trail was clear, and the tax liability could not be imposed on the Power of Attorney holder. However, a portion of ?2,44,166 remained in dispute as the receipt was not proven to be taxable in any party's hands. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, confirming the addition of ?2,44,166.

Confirmation of stamp duty addition by CIT(A):
The assessee raised grounds against the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the addition of ?51,825 for stamp duty was paid from legitimate sources. The Ld. counsel contended that no tax liability could be imposed on the assessee as the entire sale consideration was directly paid to the sellers. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, emphasizing the lack of evidence to prove the receipt of ?2,44,166 by the sellers.

Burden of proof on the assessee regarding receipt of sale proceeds:
The Tribunal reviewed the orders and found that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly deleted a significant portion of the addition. However, the dispute remained regarding the ?2,44,166, which was not shown as a receipt by one of the sellers. The assessee failed to provide evidence of the receipt or taxation of the outstanding sale proceeds, leading to the rejection of the appeal on this ground. The Tribunal also dismissed the second ground raised by the assessee regarding the stamp duty addition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the undisclosed income addition and the burden of proof on the assessee, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

← Previous Next →