2016 (12) TMI 409 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in purchase of land - Held that - From a perusal of the record it becomes clear on facts that assessee had taken a loan from one M/s City Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and it has also come on record that infact money had come from M/s City Developers into the account of assessee. There is no denial of this fact by the department. The department had at no place alleged that there was any doubt about the fact that money, which had come into the account of the assessee, were from its transaction made with M/s City Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. The monies were also found actually credited in the bank account of the assessee. No allegation of any fraudulent dealing from Kolkata have been alleged by the department. The genuineness of the transaction, therefore, is not in doubt. There is no finding whatsoever with regard to that. On the contrary it is clear that provisions of Section 69 of Act are not contrary in order to make an addition to the assessee s income. - Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of ITAT in holding the decision of CIT (A) in deleting undisclosed income of ?43,63,821 for unexplained investment in land without appreciating all facts.
2. Justification of ITAT in holding the decision of CIT (A) in deleting undisclosed income for unexplained investment in land without producing principal officer of the company providing the money.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order by the Tribunal regarding undisclosed income of ?43,63,821 for unexplained investment in land. The department questioned the ITAT's decision to delete the income, arguing that the assessee failed to prove the source of investment adequately. The AO concluded that the investment was unexplained due to the lack of evidence from the company providing the money. However, the CIT (A) deleted the addition after considering bank account details and the inability to produce required documents due to their age.

2. During the search operation, it was found that the assessee purchased land for ?40,92,000, explaining the source of funds from M/s City Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. The department's appeal was dismissed by the ITAT, emphasizing that the assessee had shown the source of money invested in the land. The bank confirmed the money transfer, but due to the age of the required details, they couldn't be provided. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, stating that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the source of money for the land investment.

3. The court noted that the assessee had taken a loan from M/s City Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, and the money had indeed come into the assessee's account. The department did not dispute this fact or allege any fraudulent dealings. The genuineness of the transaction was not in doubt, and there was no finding against the provisions of Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, the court upheld the concurrent orders of the Commissioner and the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal in favor of the assessee.