2020 (3) TMI 867 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69B - assessment u/s 153A - search action u/s.132 and seized incriminating documents including a document in question pertaining to purchasing of three bigha land wherein assessee s son has signed document with one of the sellers out of two sellers who owned the land and it was so-called decided to sale land at the rate of ₹ 9 lakhs per bigha and it is claimed to have been by the revenue authority that on same document thumb impression of one of the sellers and two witnesses are also there and appellant s son has signed on behalf of the assessee - HELD THAT - We cannot believe this fact of the revenue because no statement of sellers were recorded by the department. If there was some doubt, revenue ought to have recorded statement of the seller along with statement of witnesses. The Department does not have any other evidence other than the so-called banachhitti wherein appellant s son has made an agreement to purchase land at the rate of ₹ 27 lakhs. On the basis of aforesaid so-called banachhitti, addition cannot be made. The Department ought to have collected more evidences and should have recorded the statement of the other concerned parties. Thus, in view of the inadequate/insufficient evidence and enquiry, we delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of Assessment Order under Section 153A
2. Addition under Section 69B for unexplained investment in land
3. Addition under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure
4. Treatment of interest under Section 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D

1. Challenge to the validity of Assessment Order under Section 153A:
The appellant contested the validity of the Assessment Order passed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not addressing this challenge adequately. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail as the focus was primarily on other grounds raised by the appellant.

2. Addition under Section 69B for unexplained investment in land:
The main contention revolved around the addition of ?25 lakhs under Section 69B for alleged unexplained investment in land. The Assessing Officer based this addition on a seized document showing a sale rate of ?9 lakhs per vigha for a specific piece of land. The appellant had only shown a payment of ?2 lakhs through cheques, leading to the addition of ?25 lakhs as unexplained investment. The Commissioner upheld this addition citing reasons such as the authenticity of the seized document and the subsequent purchase of the land by the appellant. However, the appellant argued that the document was not in their handwriting, and the stamp valuation authority accepted the lower value of ?2 lakhs per bigha as per the registered sale deed. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found the evidence insufficient to support the addition and deleted the amount of ?25 lakhs.

3. Addition under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure:
The appellant also challenged the addition under Section 69C for alleged unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the evidence presented and directed the Assessing Officer to adjust the alleged unexplained payment against another addition, ultimately leading to the deletion of this particular addition.

4. Treatment of interest under Section 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D:
Regarding the interest charged under various sections, the Tribunal deemed it consequential based on the other additions. As the Tribunal deleted the primary addition of ?25 lakhs, the interest was also set aside. The appellant's representative specifically argued on this ground along with the second issue, and the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete both the addition and the interest associated with it.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the insufficiency of evidence for the additions under Sections 69B and 69C. The interest charges were also waived due to the deletion of the primary addition. The decision was pronounced on 31/01/2020.