9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 918 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 - assessee had purchased two properties during the year under consideration and stated that he had taken loan from relatives in part and rest was invested out of his own sources - HELD THAT - Contention of the assessee was not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has been changing his stance. Assessee has also furnished certain documentary evidences demonstrating that the joint owner of the property being brother of the assessee has also contributed for the acquisition of property as he made remittances from Kuwait. It is a fact that the assessee has been changing his stand but it is also fact that the assessee has filed certain evidences in support of his contention that the brother of assessee remitted certain amounts from Kuwait who happened to be co-owner of the properties in question. There is no finding by the lower authorities as to what happened to money which the assessee claimed to have received as gift/loan. Under these facts, we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after examining the aspect of remittance by the co-owner of the property and also the loan/gift claimed by the assessee. Ground of the assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Addition under section 69 of Income Tax Act. 2. Principles of natural justice not followed in appellate order. Issue 1: Addition under section 69 of Income Tax Act: The appellant contested the addition of ?49,50,000 under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) noted that the assessee had purchased properties totaling ?58,88,000 and ?48,21,000 during the relevant year. The assessee claimed the source of investment to be a loan of ?44 lakhs from relatives and ?55,00,000 from own sources. However, the A.O. disallowed this claim, resulting in an addition of ?49,50,000 to the assessee's income. The A.O. also made a further addition of ?10,000. The CIT(A) upheld the additions, leading the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal. The assessee argued that the properties were jointly owned and the amount was contributed by the brother of the assessee, not solely from the assessee's sources. The Tribunal observed that while the assessee changed his stance during proceedings, evidence showed the brother's remittances from Kuwait for property acquisition. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue considering the remittances and the loan/gift claimed by the assessee. Issue 2: Principles of natural justice not followed in appellate order: The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred by not passing a speaking appellate order, breaching principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that the authorities should have considered the evidence presented, including bank statements showing remittances from abroad. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) opposed, stating the assessee's inconsistent statements and lack of clean hands. The Tribunal acknowledged the changing stance of the assessee but found merit in the evidence of the brother's contributions. It directed the CIT(A) to re-evaluate the issue, emphasizing the need to consider the remittances and the claimed loan/gift amounts. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of thoroughly examining all evidence and ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld in tax assessments to arrive at a just and fair outcome.
|
