2014 (12) TMI 215 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of exemption u/s 54F disallowance - Assessee already owned two houses as on the date of purchase of new house Held that - The AO as well as the CIT(A) has noted that the assessee was owning three other residential properties - there is no clear finding regarding ownership of these two properties claimed to be belonging to the HUF - It is a factual aspect and it needs to be thrashed out at AO level - the flat no.201, B-1, Lotus Pond, 2A Vabhav Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad was purchased by the assessee by Flat Buyer Agreement between Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Dr. Neeta Sharma and Dr. Sunil Sharma and as per Annexure B to this Agreement, the assessee has paid ₹ 25,45,226.25 up to 17.10.2005 as a base sale price and has also paid other charges like PLC, IFMS and other charges - the total payment up to 17.10.2005 paid was ₹ 29,53,001.25 the AO himself has visited the site to verify the existence of residential building - The assessee claimed that two properties were belonging to HUF and these were acquired by the father of the assessee which was bequeathed in favour of the HUF by way of Will. It was also canvassed that this assessment has been completed in a very short period between 13.12.2010 to 29.12.2010 - Therefore, assessee could not get the benefit of effective and proper hearing - the Income-tax Inspector as well as AO has carried out inspection at the site, but the findings of visit have not been confronted with the assessee which clearly shows that there was inadequate opportunity provided to the assessee - the findings of the AO as well as the Income-tax Inspector were not confronted with the assessee - Since this is a factual aspect and without bringing all relevant facts on record, it is difficult to arrive at a justified reasoning with regard to the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained advances deleted Held that - CIT(A) rightly was of the view that assessee had sufficiently discharge onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of late Sh. Jaipal Sharma - Sh. Jaipal Sharma was having sufficient land holding and therefore, creditworthiness was also explained - identity and genuineness of transaction had been established - the AO could have enforced summon to Sh. Dushyant Tyagi for any further verification - this credit is also treated as sufficiently explained - CIT (A) has granted the relief to the assessee that assessee has sufficiently discharged the onus proving the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Jaipal Sharma - The genuineness of transaction was established - CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition - assessee has also explained sufficiently the source of credit of ₹ 5 lacs taken from Shri Dushyant Tyagi revenue is unable to produce anything contrary to the findings of the CIT(A) the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of exemption claimed under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of Rs. 15 lacs towards unexplained advances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Exemption Claimed Under Section 54F:
The assessee, a doctor operating under the name M/s. Lifeline Hospital, declared an income of Rs. 3,29,865/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the benefit under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, adding Rs. 43,27,657/- to the income. The grounds for disallowance included the assessee owning more than one residential house and the new house at Simrauli, Hapur, not being a residential house. The assessee contended that the two houses were owned by the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and one was non-residential. Additionally, the assessee argued that another residential house was purchased at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, which should qualify for the exemption.

The tribunal noted that the AO and CIT (A) found the assessee owning three residential properties. The ownership of two properties claimed to belong to the HUF was not clearly established. The tribunal emphasized the need for a factual determination at the AO level. The tribunal also noted procedural lapses, including the lack of confrontation of findings from site inspections with the assessee and insufficient opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for a de novo decision after thorough fact-finding.

2. Addition of Rs. 15 Lacs Towards Unexplained Advances:
The AO added Rs. 15 lacs to the income, claiming it was unsecured loans not sufficiently explained. The assessee argued these were advances for the sale of agricultural land. For Rs. 10 lacs from Shri Jaipal Sharma, the AO questioned the mode of advance and creditworthiness. The CIT (A) found the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations, sale agreements, and landholding details of Shri Jaipal Sharma, and ruled in favor of the assessee. For Rs. 5 lacs from Shri Dushyant Tyagi, the AO doubted the affidavit due to language differences. The CIT (A) accepted the evidence, including the sale agreement and bank certificate, and ruled in favor of the assessee.

The tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of both parties. The revenue failed to provide contrary evidence, leading the tribunal to sustain the CIT (A)'s order.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The tribunal remitted the issue of Section 54F exemption back to the AO for a fresh decision and upheld the CIT (A)'s deletion of the Rs. 15 lacs addition.