2025 (4) TMI 1611 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investments - HELD THAT - As before us AR drew our attention to the evidences to the source of payments were raised from assessee s family members. Assessee stated the sources for payment of sale consideration. We note that from the said statement the assessee availed loan from HDFC Bank own fund out of earnings LIC policy maturity and family support. There is no dispute with regard to own fund out of earning housing loan from HDFC and LIC policy maturity. Funds availed from family members - On perusal Indian Bank statement on examination of the same we find that on 17.05.2014 27.05.2014 Rs..1 lakh and Rs..4 lakhs were received by the assessee from his brother. Assessee received Rs..2 lakhs from his wife on 12.11.2014. Again on 08.12.2014 he received Rs..1, 30, 000/- though cheque from Mr. Ramanathan. We find on verification of the same that the assessee explained entire sale consideration towards investment in immovable property by availing loan from HDFC own earnings LIC policy maturity and funds from his family members. But however the AO did not give credit to the same thereby in our opinion the addition is not maintainable. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

Summary

The core legal question considered by the Tribunal was whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained investments, was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The issue arose in the context of reopening the assessment under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 8,30,000 to the income of the assessee on the ground that the source of this amount, used as part of the consideration for purchase of immovable property, was not satisfactorily explained with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal's detailed analysis centered on the following points:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The addition was made under section 69 of the Act, which deals with unexplained investments. The principle underlying this section is that if an assessee is unable to explain the source of investments or payments, the amount can be added to his income. The reopening of the assessment under section 147 requires that the Assessing Officer have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Section 144C(13) pertains to the procedure for assessment following directions by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a non-resident Indian, had not filed any return of income initially. The Assessing Officer received information regarding the purchase of immovable property for Rs. 2,23,44,500. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 and subsequently made an addition of the entire sale consideration in the draft assessment order due to lack of explanation on source of funds. However, after objections before the DRP and remand, the final assessment order only disallowed Rs. 8,30,000 as unexplained.

The assessee's representative contended that the source of the entire investment was adequately explained by way of a combination of a housing loan from HDFC Bank, earnings from abroad, maturity proceeds from an LIC policy, and funds received from family members. Documentary evidence including bank statements and transaction details were submitted to substantiate these claims.

Upon scrutiny, the Tribunal examined the bank statements and other evidences submitted. It was found that Rs. 5,00,000 was received from the assessee's brother on two dates in May 2014, Rs. 2,00,000 from his wife in November 2014, and Rs. 1,30,000 from his father-in-law in December 2014. These amounts collectively accounted for the disputed sum of Rs. 8,30,000. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had not given due credit to these evidences.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Indian Bank statements and cheque details were pivotal in establishing the source of the disputed funds. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the other sources such as the housing loan, own earnings, and LIC maturity proceeds. The only contention was with respect to the funds from family members, which were supported by documentary proof.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principle under section 69 that the burden lies on the assessee to explain the source of investment. It found that the assessee had discharged this burden by producing credible documentary evidence showing that the funds were received from family members. Since the Assessing Officer did not rebut this evidence or demonstrate any infirmity in the documents, the addition was unwarranted.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Assessing Officer and the Departmental Representative relied on the initial non-filing of return and absence of documentary evidence at the preliminary stage to justify the addition. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the final assessment order was passed after the DRP's directions and opportunity to explain the sources was given. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's refusal to accept the documentary evidence submitted before it to be unjustified.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 8,30,000 under section 69 was not maintainable. The assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of the investment with credible evidence. Accordingly, the addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed.

Significant holdings and principles established include:

"We find, on verification of the same, that the assessee explained entire sale consideration towards investment in immovable property by availing loan from HDFC, own earnings, LIC policy maturity and funds from his family members. But, however, the Assessing Officer did not give credit to the same, thereby, in our opinion, the addition of Rs. 8,30,000 is not maintainable."

The Tribunal also held that the stay application filed by the assessee became infructuous following the deletion of the addition and was accordingly dismissed.

In sum, the Tribunal's final determination was that the Assessing Officer's addition under section 69 was unsustainable in light of the evidence furnished and the legal burden on the assessee being discharged. The appeal was allowed with deletion of the addition of Rs. 8,30,000.