2022 (8) TMI 1225 - AT - Income Tax

Order passed by CIT(A) without providing opportunity to appellant - CIT(A) decided the appeal on ex-parte basis - HELD THAT - Assessee claimed that ld. CIT(A) has not provided opportunity to the assessee. The assessee claimed that adjournment applications on account of non-availability of Authorized Representative due to ill health of his father and personal reasons. However no such adjournment letter or medical certificate produced before us by the assessee. Therefore this ground of the assessee is hereby rejected. Disallowance u/s 80GGC - donation made to political party - HELD THAT - The assessee has not produced any additional evidence in support of its claim. In fact the assessee had stated that it had cordial relationship with Mr. Kamlendu Tripathi Secretary of RSP and no other criteria was followed for making these donations. A.O. made a detailed enquiry of RSP and its Bank accounts and transfer of funds to one Shri Mukesh Mehta proprietor of two firms and he transferred it to Waheguru Enterprise and Sapan Traders which is clearly a systematic financial maneuver to legitimate illicit moneys and evade taxes. It is appropriate to follow the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment wherein SLP filed by the assessee is dismissed confirming the Tribunal s decision to come to the conclusion that the entire loan transaction was not genuine in the case of Pavankumar M. Sanghvi 2018 (7) TMI 1155 - SC ORDER . In the absence of any evidence from the assessee the grounds raised by the assessee are untenable and therefore the same is rejected. The findings given by the lower authorities does not require any interference and the addition is sustained. Addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) - Difference between value adopted for stamp duty and purchase consideration for the land - HELD THAT - A.R. could not produce before us the assessee s share of 24.35% namely the proportionate amount being the difference in market value and purchase consideration which is being treated as income of the assessee u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In the absence of any further details we have no other option of confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Thus this ground raised by the assessee is also rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Opportunity to the appellant by CIT(A)
2. Disallowance of Rs. 52,00,000 under Section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961
3. Addition of Rs. 16,17,478 under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Detailed Analysis:

1. Opportunity to the appellant by CIT(A)
The appellant contended that the CIT(A) decided the appeal on an ex-parte basis without providing a fair opportunity to present its case. The appellant claimed that adjournment applications were filed due to the non-availability of the authorized representative because of personal reasons and ill health of his father. However, the Tribunal noted that no such adjournment letters or medical certificates were produced before them. Consequently, this ground was rejected by the Tribunal.

2. Disallowance of Rs. 52,00,000 under Section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 52,00,000/- being a donation made to a political party under Section 80GGC. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not produce any additional evidence to support its claim. The Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a detailed inquiry into the political party's bank accounts and found that the donation was systematically routed back to the donator, indicating a financial maneuver to legitimize illicit money and evade taxes. The Tribunal upheld the AO's findings and cited the Supreme Court judgment in Pavankumar M. Sanghvi vs. ITO, affirming that the entire loan transaction was not genuine. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected this ground and sustained the addition.

3. Addition of Rs. 16,17,478 under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,17,478/- being the difference between the value adopted for stamp duty and the purchase consideration for the land. The appellant argued that the total consideration paid by the acquirers was more than the stamp duty value of the property, and thus, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) would not be applicable. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not produce any evidence or relevant explanation to support this claim. In the absence of any further details, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance made by the AO and rejected this ground as well.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the disallowance of Rs. 52,00,000/- under Section 80GGC and the addition of Rs. 16,17,478/- under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's contention regarding the lack of opportunity provided by CIT(A). The order was pronounced in the open court on 26-08-2022.