2025 (3) TMI 1160 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 56(2)(vii) - Immovable property has been purchased by the Assessee below the Circle rate and considered the applicable circle rate as sale consideration - HELD THAT - In the present case it is not the case of wrong mentioning of provision of Section it is crystal clear that the AO has proceeded to make addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and accordingly made addition under the very same provision. Even the CIT(A) has also confirmed the very same addition made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Such a blatant error of invocation of a Provision against the Assessee which was not even applicable/exist in the year under consideration which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Authority cannot be construed as mere wrong mentioning of provision of law. Therefore the Judgment relied by DR in the case of Namev Arora 2016 (8) TMI 219 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT is not applicable to the case in hand. Proving the source of investment for purchase of Agriculture Land - AO disbelieved the claim of the Assessee without their being any contrary evidence or without making any investigation or examination of the parties. Considering the land holdings of the Assessee and his family members AO should have accepted the claim of the Assessee in the absence of any contrary evidence brought on record. AO has committed error in making the addition and the CIT(A) has also erroneously upheld the same. Addition made by the A.O. which has been upheld by the CIT(A) it hereby deleted. Accordingly we allow the Ground No. 5 to 7 of the Assessee. CIT(A) confirmed part addition of agricultural income - It is the case of the Assessee that the Assessee was owing six acres of the land from the beginning of the Financial Year which yielded him the income. The said fact that the Assessee was owning additional six acres of land which has been acquired during the starting of the Financial Year has not been considered by the A.O. However though the CIT(A) has granted substantial relief after considering the holdings of the land of the Assessee no reason or justification has been given for sustaining addition. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the entire claim of the Assessee as agriculture income in view of 18 acres of land holdings of the Assessee and his family member. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

2016 (8) TMI 219 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 was valid and within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO).
Whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the Assessee's income by treating the cost of agricultural land purchased as Rs. 1,03,28,400/- was justified.
Whether the Assessee failed to prove the source of investment for the land purchase.
Whether the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act were applicable to the Assessee's case for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
Whether the Assessee was entitled to relief regarding the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- treated as income from other sources instead of agricultural income.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity of Notice under Section 148:

The Assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, claiming it was invalid and without jurisdiction. However, this ground was not pressed during the appeal, and thus the Tribunal dismissed it as not pressed.

Application of Section 56(2)(vii) and Addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-:

Relevant Legal Framework: Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act deals with the taxability of income from other sources, including the purchase of property below the circle rate. However, the specific provision concerning immovable property came into effect from 01/04/2014.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the AO erroneously applied Section 56(2)(vii) for the Assessment Year 2011-12, as the provision was not applicable during that period. The court emphasized that the AO's and CIT(A)'s reliance on this section was a blatant error, not merely a wrong mention of the section.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Assessee had purchased agricultural land for Rs. 35,70,000/-, while the circle rate was Rs. 98,17,500/-. The AO treated the total cost as Rs. 1,03,28,400/- and made an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the Assessee's income.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that since the provision of Section 56(2)(vii) was not applicable, the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was erroneous.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Departmental Representative argued that the wrong mention of the section could be rectified. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the error was not merely a clerical mistake.
Conclusions: The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO.

Source of Investment for Land Purchase:

Key Evidence and Findings: The Assessee claimed the investment was sourced from agricultural income and contributions from family members, who were also co-owners of the property.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the AO erred in disbelieving the Assessee's claim without contrary evidence or investigation. The Assessee provided details of family contributions and land holdings, which were not adequately considered by the AO.
Conclusions: The Tribunal accepted the Assessee's explanation and deleted the addition related to the source of investment.

Addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- as Income from Other Sources:

Key Evidence and Findings: The AO had considered only 4 acres of land for agricultural income, ignoring additional land acquired by the Assessee. The CIT(A) provided partial relief but did not justify the remaining addition.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted the Assessee's ownership of additional land and found no reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Conclusions: The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- and allowed the related grounds of appeal.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The Tribunal emphasized that the erroneous application of a non-applicable legal provision cannot be justified as a mere clerical error. The correct legal framework must be applied based on the applicable law during the relevant assessment year.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, deleting the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) concerning the purchase of agricultural land and the alleged undisclosed income.

← Previous Next →