2023 (6) TMI 77 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment - Unaccounted cash for purchase - admission of the third party / addition based on the statement of the third party - HELD THAT - Except the admission of the vendor, that the assessee had paid unaccounted cash for purchase of villa in Green City Project of Vizag Profiles group, there is no supporting evidence placed before us by the revenue establishing that the assessee has paid extra amount. The revenue authorities has placed one appraisal report, where name of the assessee was mentioned showing that the assessee has paid an amount in cash. Case was reopened and the AO examined the issue and came to conclusion that the assessee has not established an amount therefore, he treated the said amount as unexplained investment. The assessee was not given the copy of the said statement of admission, nor he was given any opportunity for the purpose of rebutting the said statement. Mere admission of the third party cannot be a basis for making addition in the hands of the assessee without confronting the assessee about the incriminating material. M/s Vizag Profiles made a general statement that they have received some amount from the purchasers. Therefore, addition of unaccounted investment in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment under section 147
2. Addition of Rs.17,80,000 as unexplained income

Validity of reassessment under section 147:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The case involved the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on information received during a post-search investigation. The AO reopened the case under section 148 and made an addition of Rs.17,80,000 to the income returned by the assessee. The assessee contended that the AO failed to provide reasons for reopening the assessment, depriving the assessee of the opportunity to present submissions. The argument was supported by a reference to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561, emphasizing the need for tangible material to support reopening. The Tribunal found that apart from the vendor's admission of unaccounted cash payment by the assessee, there was no concrete evidence supporting the additional amount. The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide the assessee with the incriminating material for rebuttal, rendering the addition unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on this ground, annulling the assessment and deleting the Rs.17,80,000 addition.

Addition of Rs.17,80,000 as unexplained income:
The second issue revolved around the addition of Rs.17,80,000 as unexplained income, which was made by the AO and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee argued that they had only paid the documented value of Rs.47,20,000 for the property purchase, while the AO relied on information suggesting a higher investment of Rs.65,00,000. The Tribunal noted that the revenue authorities failed to establish the additional payment beyond the documented value, except for the vendor's admission of cash payment. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of supporting evidence and the failure to provide the assessee with the opportunity to rebut the vendor's statement. The Tribunal concluded that mere third-party admission without confrontation with the assessee was insufficient to justify the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on this ground as well, ruling in favor of the assessee and dismissing the Rs.17,80,000 addition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, annulling the assessment and deleting the addition of Rs.17,80,000 as unexplained income. The judgment highlighted the importance of tangible material for reassessment under section 147 and emphasized the necessity of providing the assessee with incriminating evidence for rebuttal before making additions to the income.