9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 282 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment in purchase of immovable property u/s 69 - Addition being the Fair Market Value of the property at Oberoi Reality purchased by the assessee - HELD THAT - We find that there was no mistake on the part of the assessee to submit the relevant documents and evidences and explanations before the assessing officer as well as DRP. AO as well as DRP did not find any mistake in the documents and evidences and explanation submitted by the assessee except to say that these documents and evidences are not acceptable. It is not tenable in the eye of law. AO and DRP do not mention why they are not accepting these evidences and when an assessee has all the possible evidence in support of its claim they cannot be brushed aside based on surmises as noted by us above therefore based on this score only the addition made by the assessing officer should be deleted. Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Russian Technology Centre (P.) Ltd 2013 (4) TMI 659 - ITAT DELHI held that if identity of non-resident remitter is established and money has come in through banking channels it cannot be treated as deemed income under section 68 or 69. in the assessee s case under consideration the assessee purchased the property on 25.02.2010 and major payment was made to Oberoi Realty Limited in the year 2010 itself. Therefore it should not be taxable in the assessment year 2018 19. That is no addition under section 69 could be made in year under consideration in respect of investment in immovable property made in earlier year(s). Money brought in India by non-resident for investment or for other purposes is not liable to tax under provisions of Act and question of assessment to income-tax arises only when there is no evidence to show that amount in question in fact represents remittance from abroad for that reliance is based on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Panaji in the case of Iqbal Ismail Virani 2021 (3) TMI 664 - ITAT PANAJI Thus addition made by the assessing officer/DRP needs to be deleted - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment are as follows: 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,97,63,459/- as unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was justified. 2. Whether the transaction related to the purchase of property should be assessed in the assessment year 2018-19 or in an earlier year, given the timing of the transaction. 3. Whether the payments made through the bank account of the assessee's wife, who is an NRI, were adequately explained and whether they could be considered as unexplained investments. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Addition of Rs. 2,97,63,459/- as Unexplained Investment under Section 69 Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69 of the Income-tax Act deals with unexplained investments, allowing the assessing officer to deem such investments as the income of the assessee if the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory explanation. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the assessing officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) failed to consider the documents and evidence submitted by the assessee, which included bank statements and other relevant documents. The Tribunal noted that these documents were not refuted or discredited by the assessing officer or the DRP. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted various documents, including bank statements of his wife, who is an NRI, and other related documents to prove the source of funds. The Tribunal found that these documents were not given due consideration by the assessing officer or the DRP. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that when an assessee provides evidence in support of their claim, such evidence cannot be disregarded without proper reasoning. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sreelekha Bannerjee, which states that the department must show an inherent weakness in the explanation or rebut it with evidence. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer and DRP did not provide any substantial reasons for rejecting the evidence presented by the assessee. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the assessing officer was not justified, as the evidence provided by the assessee was not properly considered. 2. Timing of the Transaction and Assessment Year Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the timing of the transaction, noting that the property was purchased in 2010, and major payments were made in the same year. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that since the transaction was concluded in the assessment year 2010-11, the addition should not be made in the assessment year 2018-19. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal referred to the allotment letter and sale agreement, which showed that the property was purchased in 2010. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that investments made in earlier years should not be taxed in subsequent years. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the argument that the transaction should be assessed in 2018-19, as the evidence clearly indicated that the transaction occurred in 2010. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition should not be made in the assessment year 2018-19. 3. Explanation of Payments through NRI Account Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 68 and 69, which deal with unexplained credits and investments, respectively. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the payments were made through the bank account of the assessee's wife, who is an NRI, and that the credits in the account were adequately explained. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal referred to the bank statements of the assessee's wife and other related documents, which showed the source of funds. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that when the identity of the non-resident remitter is established and the money has come through banking channels, it cannot be treated as deemed income under Section 68 or 69. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the argument that the payments were unexplained, as the evidence provided by the assessee was sufficient to explain the source of funds. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the payments made through the NRI account were adequately explained and should not be treated as unexplained investments. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core Principles Established: The Tribunal established the principle that when an assessee provides substantial evidence in support of their claim, such evidence cannot be disregarded without proper reasoning. It also emphasized that investments made in earlier years should not be taxed in subsequent years, and that payments made through banking channels by non-residents should not be treated as unexplained investments. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the addition of Rs. 2,97,63,459/- made by the assessing officer, as the evidence provided by the assessee was sufficient to explain the source of funds and the timing of the transaction.
|
