2015 (2) TMI 496 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted investment in land - assessee has not placed any material on record suggesting that the original-deed was cancelled - Held that - The undisputed facts remains that the assessee has placed on record a modification deed, wherein certain changes have been made in respect of the title of the land. The contention of the assessee is that due to defective title, earlier deed was cancelled and the land was purchased on the fresh terms and conditions. We find that the authorities below have not examined the sellers of the land whether there was any change into the terms and conditions. In the absence of the same, the AO was not justified in making the addition. The assessee has also failed to substantiate its claim that the development expenditure were required to be borne by the owners of the land since we do not find any such terms in the original agreement to sell. Therefore, in our considered view, it would subserve the interest of justice if this issue is restored back to the file of the AO for deciding it afresh. - AO would verify the claim of the assessee that in earlier agreement to sell the seller of the land was required to give developed land to the assessee and in modified terms, it is upon the assessee who would incur the expenditure - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Unaccounted investment in land alleged by the AO
- Appeal by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)
- Addition of amounts in the Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2004-05
- Dispute over cancellation of original agreement and subsequent purchase of land
- Failure to consider development expenditure and title clearance in assessing unaccounted investment
- Deletion of additions by the Ld.CIT(A) and subsequent appeals by both the Assessee and the Revenue

Analysis:
1. Assessee's Appeal for AY 2003-04:
- The Assessee contested the addition of unaccounted investment in land by the AO. The Assessee argued that the original agreement was canceled due to defective title, and a new agreement was made at a lower price. The Assessee claimed to have cleared the title defect and incurred development expenses. The AO presumed the original purchase price as unaccounted investment, but the Assessee provided a modification deed as evidence of changes in the deal terms. The Tribunal found that the AO did not verify changes in the terms and conditions with the sellers, leading to the decision to restore the issue back to the AO for further examination.

2. Revenue's Appeal for AY 2003-04:
- The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 8 lakhs made by the Ld.CIT(A) regarding unaccounted investment in land. The Revenue argued that the balance payment was pending for two plots despite one plot being converted into non-agricultural use. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the deletion based on the terms of the agreement, where payment was linked to land conversion. The Tribunal concurred with the Ld.CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

3. Assessee's Appeal for AY 2004-05:
- The Assessee raised similar grounds as in the AY 2003-04 appeal regarding unaccounted investment in land. Given the identical facts to the previous year, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the AO for reevaluation, aligning with the decision made for AY 2003-04.

4. Overall Decision:
- The Tribunal allowed both appeals by the Assessee for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05 for statistical purposes, as the issues were referred back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2003-04 was dismissed, upholding the deletion of the addition by the Ld.CIT(A).

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, findings, and decisions made by the Tribunal concerning the unaccounted investment in land and the subsequent appeals by both the Assessee and the Revenue for the specified Assessment Years.