2022 (10) TMI 543 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - Unexplained investment - argument taken up by the assessee is that he is not the owner of the properties and in respect of 11 properties he is only a confirming party - HELD THAT - We observe that the Assessing Officer in the absence of supporting material produced before by the assessee (despite several opportunities being granted to the assessee) made additio on estimated basis by considering 1/10th of the total consideration of 14 properties as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. From the above facts, it is however not very clear as to whether the assessee was a confirming party in respect of 14 properties referred to the AO and also what was the precise investment in the aforesaid properties made by the assessee and consequently the amount that may be taxed in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above facts, in the interest of justice, we are restoring the matter back to the AO in order to ascertain from the facts whether the assessee is only a confirming party in respect of the aforesaid transaction of investment in 14 properties or whether he is a owner in respect of such properties, the precise investment made by the assessee in the aforesaid properties and also to verify whether the source of such investment has been duly explained by the assessee. In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the above directions. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained investments.
2. Confirmation of interest levied under section 234A/B/C of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained investments:

The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee purchased immovable properties amounting to Rs. 97,12,300/- without disclosing the sources of investment. Despite multiple notices, the assessee failed to provide details or documentary evidence regarding the transactions. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the entire transaction as unexplained income under section 69 of the Act.

In the appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that out of the 14 properties mentioned, he was only involved in three properties and his share was limited. The assessee argued that being named in a sale deed does not make one the owner of the property. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee failed to provide any evidence or documentation to support his claims.

The ITAT, after considering the arguments, observed that it was unclear whether the assessee was merely a confirming party in the transactions or the actual owner of the properties. Due to lack of clarity on the precise investment made by the assessee and the ownership status, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further investigation to ascertain the facts and sources of investment.

Issue 2: Confirmation of interest levied under section 234A/B/C of the Income Tax Act:

The appeal also challenged the confirmation of interest levied under sections 234A/B/C of the Income Tax Act. However, the detailed analysis and decision on this issue were not explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and directed the matter to be sent back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the ownership status, investment sources, and other relevant details related to the properties in question.