2023 (3) TMI 1047 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained income u/s. 68 - unsecured loan in the name of M/s VRS infrastructure by the assessee and the co-owner is the unexplained income in the hands of assessee and made addition being 50% of the aforesaid amount (since the assessee was 50% as co-owner of the aforesaid land) - assessee submitted that all the payments were made through banking channels and the entire flow of transactions was explained in detail to the AO and Ld. CIT(Appeals) and without pointing out any specific defect in the said flow of transactions, the Department has added the amount in the hands of the assessee without any cogent reasons - HELD THAT - The assessee produced before us copy of conversion premium pay order issued by the City Mamlatdar - assessee also produced before us approval letter by Government Authority for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land at page 9 of the paper book. The assessee also produced before us details of payment of conversion premium along with copies of cheques issued by Shri Shanti Lal Patel and Shri SM Bharwad to the concerned Government Authority. On going through the relevant documents placed before us and the flow of transactions which has been elaborated before us, CIT(Appeals) erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition in the hands of the assessee as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. From the facts, it is evident that the said amount was taken as unsecured loan from VRS Infrastructure and which was paid directly to Shri Shanti Lal Patel and Shri SM Bharwad towards conversion charges of agricultural land to non-agricultural land. Accordingly, we are allowing the appeal of the assessee and the addition made under section 68 in the hands of the assessee is directed to be deleted.Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal involves confirming payments as unexplained income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Summary:
The appellant, an individual, purchased land jointly with another party and paid a premium for land conversion using funds borrowed from Shri Shanti Lal Patel and Shri SM Bharvad. The funds were paid directly from the lenders' bank accounts to the Government Authority. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered the amount shown as an unsecured loan in the appellant's books as unexplained income and made an addition to the appellant's total income. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The appellant appealed, providing detailed explanations and evidence of the transactions. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the transactions seemed to circumvent laws and lacked direct or indirect involvement of the lenders in the land purchase. The appellant then appealed to the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad.

The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the facts and documents presented, noting that all payments were made through banking channels. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the addition of the amount in the appellant's income as unexplained was unjustified. The Tribunal observed that the funds were taken as a loan from VRS Infrastructure and directly paid to the lenders for land conversion charges. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition made under section 68 of the Act in the appellant's hands.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, overturning the decision to treat the payments as unexplained income and directing the deletion of the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.