2019 (5) TMI 185 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - Unexplained investment u/s 69 - payments falling in the financial years prior to the financial year 2004- 05 relevant to assessment year 2005-06 - HELD THAT - In this case, the transaction entered into viz., agreement of sale of undivided share of land and department store to be constructed with Aadhithiya Constructions is single property spread over to various years is not under dispute. If it is so, when the sources are in question, the said sources are to be seen for the property as a whole and thus, the Tribunal sustained the observations of the ld. CIT(A) and rejected the alternative plea raised by the assessee. Thus, we find no mistake apparent on record and accordingly, the petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Rectification of order passed by Tribunal regarding treatment of certain payments as 'unexplained investment' under section 69 of the Act for assessment year 2005-06.

Analysis:

1. Rectification of Tribunal Order:
The assessee sought rectification of the Tribunal's order regarding the treatment of certain payments as 'unexplained investment' under section 69 of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The specific alternate ground raised by the assessee was that payments falling in financial years prior to 2004-05 cannot be added as 'unexplained investment'. The Tribunal, however, confirmed the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the plea for rectification. The ld. DR argued that there was no mistake apparent in the Tribunal's order and that a review was not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act.

2. Alternate Contention of the Assessee:
The assessee had raised an alternate contention regarding certain payments made in the financial year 2002-03, which were argued to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the transaction in question involved an agreement for the sale of land and a department store spread over various years. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the sources of the payments should be seen in relation to the property as a whole. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's alternative plea, emphasizing that the payments made in 2002-03 were not barred by limitation.

3. Decision and Dismissal of Miscellaneous Petition:
After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the original appeal grounds, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent on record to warrant rectification. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous petition. The order was pronounced on 30th April 2019 in Chennai, thereby concluding the matter.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the treatment of payments as 'unexplained investment' under the relevant provisions of the Act for the assessment year in question.