2023 (11) TMI 846 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits - sale proceedings given over and above registered value by the assessee - HELD THAT - We find that the ld. CIT(A) in his order relied on the order of Jagtar Singh 2010 (12) TMI 1355 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT as observed that the cash deposit has no relevance with the assessee s payment over and above the registered price. So, the amount duly negated and has no relevance with assessee. We find that there is no such evidence was found for assessee related payment the cash Rs. 48.5 on and above the registered value. The ld. DR was unable to take any divergent view against submission of assessee - Assessee appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Validity of jurisdiction u/s 147/148.
3. Assessment in HUF capacity vs. individual.
4. Unexplained credits in bank accounts.
5. Unexplained investment in land.
6. Consideration of additional evidence and explanation by assessee.

Summary:

Condonation of Delay:
The appeals were filed with a delay of 740 days. The assessee cited severe health issues and the extension granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court due to the Covid Pandemic. The delay was condoned as the ld. DR did not object.

Validity of Jurisdiction u/s 147/148:
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the ITO u/s 147/148. It was contended that the material relied upon had become non-existent due to a High Court order. The ITAT found that the reopening was based on information from the ITO W-6(2), Ropar, and a letter from CIT(A) Chandigarh, alleging cash payments over the apparent consideration in a land deal. The ITAT upheld the reopening of cases.

Assessment in HUF Capacity vs. Individual:
The assessee argued that the transactions were assessable in HUF capacity and not individually. The ITAT did not find merit in this claim and upheld the assessment in the individual capacity of the assessee.

Unexplained Credits in Bank Accounts:
The CIT(A) sustained additions of Rs. 17,23,550/- as unexplained credits in bank accounts. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider supporting documents filed as additional evidence. The ITAT found this to be a travesty of justice and quashed the additions.

Unexplained Investment in Land:
The CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 16,87,180/- for unexplained investment in land, disregarding a High Court order in the case of Jagtar Singh. The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) erred in not following the High Court's order, which negated the relevance of the alleged cash payments. The ITAT quashed the addition.

Consideration of Additional Evidence and Explanation by Assessee:
The ITAT found that the appellate authority had not objectively considered the assessee's explanation and corroborative evidence. The ITAT emphasized that the assessee's issues were already covered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which negated the alleged cash payments.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed all the appeals of the assessee, quashing the impugned orders and finding no merit in the additions made by the revenue authorities. The decision in ITA No. 90/Asr/2022 was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 89/Asr/2022 and ITA No. 91/Asr/2022.

← Previous Next →