2022 (11) TMI 1116 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - unexplained expenditure towards registration fee and stamp duty u/s 69C - On source of huge investment the submission filed by the assessee was not found satisfactory and the assessing officer made the addition - HELD THAT - We find that the source of the said investment in property is loan taken from ICICI Bank and the same is verifiable from paper book page showing an offer letter issued by ICICI Bank sanctioning loan - Further the repayment schedule and shows the property value - Various other documents including loan confirmation certificate and deed of conveyance are sufficient enough to prove that the source of investment in property is loan taken from ICICI Bank and, therefore, on merits also the addition made by the assessing officer u/s 68 and u/s 69C of the Act do not stand. We, therefore, fail to find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and thus Ground Nos. 1, 2 3 of the revenue are dismissed. Violation of Rule 46A of the Rules - HELD THAT - It is not discernible from the records nor referred to by the ld. D/R as to what were the documents filed by the assessee before the assessing officer and what new documents were filed before the ld. CIT(A) and without being able to lay our hands on these specific documents, we fail to find any merit in this ground raised by the revenue. Also the facts of the case as discernible from the records and the paper book filed by the assessee, there is sufficient force in the contention of the assessee explaining the source of investment in property and since the factual aspects have been examined by us, we fail to find any merit in this ground of the revenue and hence dismiss the same.

Issues:
1. Acceptance of new evidences without remand to A.O.
2. Deletion of addition made u/s 68 by CIT(A).
3. Deletion of addition made u/s 69C by CIT(A).
4. Acceptance of fresh evidence without verification.
5. Violation of Rule 46A of IT Rules.

Issue 1: Acceptance of new evidences without remand to A.O.
The revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for accepting new evidences without remand to the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in accepting new evidences, including conveyance deed, loan statement, bank statement, and others, without following Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted the new evidences without providing an opportunity to the A.O. to verify them. However, upon examination of the documents and the case facts, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's argument and dismissed this ground of appeal.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition made u/s 68 by CIT(A)
The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer had added a substantial amount as unexplained cash credit, which the CIT(A) overturned, stating that it was actually an investment in property. The CIT(A) found that the source of the investment was a loan from ICICI Bank, which was adequately explained. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the documents provided, including the loan sanction letter and deed of conveyance, proved the source of the investment, leading to the dismissal of this ground of appeal.

Issue 3: Deletion of addition made u/s 69C by CIT(A)
Another ground of appeal by the revenue was the deletion of an addition made under section 69C of the Act by the CIT(A). The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for unexplained registration costs without proper justification. However, the Tribunal found that the expenses were adequately explained by the assessee, and the source of investment was clarified through documentary evidence. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal as well.

Issue 4: Acceptance of fresh evidence without verification
The revenue raised a concern about the acceptance of fresh evidence by the CIT(A) without proper verification and without providing an opportunity to the A.O. to examine it. The Tribunal noted that the specific documents filed by the assessee were not clearly identified in the records. After reviewing the case facts and the documents presented, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's argument, as the source of investment in property was adequately explained by the assessee. Consequently, this ground of appeal was dismissed.

Issue 5: Violation of Rule 46A of IT Rules
The final ground of appeal related to the alleged violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules by the CIT(A). The revenue claimed that the CIT(A) violated the rules by accepting new evidence without proper verification. However, the Tribunal found that there was no concrete evidence or reference to specific documents to substantiate this claim. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the investment source were satisfactory. Therefore, this ground of appeal was also dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the assessing officer under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the source of investment in property was adequately explained through documentary evidence, leading to the dismissal of all grounds of appeal raised by the revenue.

← Previous Next →