2022 (11) TMI 544 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in construction of property - HELD THAT - As all evidences were discarded by the authorities below without making any independent verifications , and on being asked by the Bench, it was submitted by ld. Sr DR that as is emerging from records no such independent verification was done by authorities below. Even for cash deposited by the assssee in the saving bank account maintained with UBI, it is claimed vide ground number 6 that the same was deposited out of advance received from intended purchaser of the shop and Rs. 18,00,000/- was invested in the construction of shop, thus, prima-facie it appears that double addition is made by the AO , firstly while treating Rs. 18,00,000/- as unexplained investment in the construction of commercial complex and secondly when the said cash was claimed to be deposited in bank and out of it aforesaid Rs. 18,00,000/- claimed to be used for construction of commercial complex, but however these facts require proper verification by authorities below to unravel truth, and the matter is required to be restored to AO for denovo assessment , after making proper verification . Thus, the matter is required to be set aside and restored to the file of the AO for denovo assessment by the AO, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellate order passed by the CIT(A).
2. Justification of the addition of Rs. 22,17,420 as unexplained investment in property construction.
3. Acceptance of Rs. 40,00,000 as money received against the sale of land.
4. Acceptance of Rs. 4,14,420 as sale proceeds invested in property construction.
5. Acceptance of advances received from intended purchasers of the shop.
6. Investment of Rs. 18,00,000 from advances received in property construction.
7. Legality of additions made for the assessment year 2009-10 for property constructed during FY 2006-07 to 2008-09.
8. Overall legality and validity of the appellate order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the appellate order passed by the CIT(A):
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in law and facts in passing the appellate order. The appellate order was challenged on the grounds of procedural and substantive issues, including the failure to accept certain financial transactions and investments as legitimate.

2. Justification of the addition of Rs. 22,17,420 as unexplained investment in property construction:
The AO observed that the assessee admitted to constructing a commercial complex costing Rs. 70,00,000 but failed to provide documentary evidence for the sources of investment. The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 22,17,420 as unexplained investment due to the lack of substantiating evidence for certain claimed sources, including advances from purchasers and sale proceeds.

3. Acceptance of Rs. 40,00,000 as money received against the sale of land:
The assessee claimed Rs. 40,00,000 as received from the sale of land. The AO and CIT(A) accepted only Rs. 35,82,580 based on the sale deeds provided. The discrepancy of Rs. 4,17,420 remained unexplained, leading to its addition as unexplained investment.

4. Acceptance of Rs. 4,14,420 as sale proceeds invested in property construction:
The assessee's claim of Rs. 4,14,420 as sale proceeds invested in property construction was not accepted by the authorities due to insufficient evidence. The tribunal noted the need for proper verification of these claims.

5. Acceptance of advances received from intended purchasers of the shop:
The assessee claimed to have received Rs. 20,40,000 as advances from purchasers, which was deposited in the bank and partly invested in property construction. The CIT(A) did not accept these claims due to lack of evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the purchasers.

6. Investment of Rs. 18,00,000 from advances received in property construction:
The assessee claimed that Rs. 18,00,000 of the advances received were invested in property construction. However, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition of this amount as unexplained investment due to the absence of corroborating evidence.

7. Legality of additions made for the assessment year 2009-10 for property constructed during FY 2006-07 to 2008-09:
The assessee argued that the property was constructed over multiple financial years, but the additions were made only for the assessment year 2009-10. The tribunal noted the need for proper verification of the construction timeline and corresponding investments.

8. Overall legality and validity of the appellate order:
The tribunal found procedural lapses and lack of proper verification by the authorities. It admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee and remanded the matter to the AO for a denovo assessment, emphasizing the need for thorough verification of all claims and sources of investment.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to conduct a denovo assessment with proper verification of all claims and investments, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity to present evidence. The order was pronounced on 09.11.2022 at Allahabad, U.P.

← Previous Next →