2023 (3) TMI 1237 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act only and no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was taken up - HELD THAT - Assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act within four years after processing of return of income under section 143(1) of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that there is conceptual difference between section 143(1) of the Act and section 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) AO select the return filed by the assessee for scrutiny and after scrutiny, the AO is concluding the original assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was not carried out. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has validly reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Capital gain on sale of land - Nature of land sold - whether land were agricultural land, and hence not liable to capital gain under section 2(14) ? - HELD THAT - Assessee could not controvert the report of Tahsildar, wherein, he has categorically stated that no crops were grown on the pieces of land sites from the period from 2008 to 2013. Secondly, the assessee has not produced the details of crops grown on the above land during the financial years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Moreover, the assessee has not produced the details of irrigation facility on the land, details of pump sets, if any, details of electricity bills, etc., either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal. Moreover, in the website www.tnreginet.net, the status of the above land shows as residential . CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Addition made u/s 2(22)(e) - amount received from the company shown as share application money to the company for which, allocation is pending - assessee is one of the Directors and he is having a substantial interest in the company granting loans to assessee - HELD THAT - AO has observed that the money advanced by the assessee to the company for subscription of shares and money received as advances from the company are completely two different transactions - personal loans taken by the assessee and for meeting the construction expenses of house property built by the assessee indicates that the above two transactions have no nexus and the outstanding debit balance appearing in the name of the assessee represents the advance received by the assessee for various personal purposes from the company in which he holds substantial interest. Assessing Officer has held that the transaction clearly falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and brought to tax to the extent of the accumulated surplus available with the company as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) - Ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Addition made towards cash deposits in the bank - assessee could not explain satisfactorily with evidences the source for the cash deposits appearing in the assessee s bank account - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer, the assessee has made entirely different submissions. The assessee has explained the sources of funds with different break-ups in different places, which are nothing but an afterthought. Thus, the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) under section 68 of the Act stands sustained. Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay
2. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147
3. Addition of Capital Gains on Sale of Land
4. Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e)
5. Addition towards Unexplained Cash Deposits

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal in I.T.A. No. 107/Chny/2021 filed by the assessee was delayed by 579 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation for 18 months but did not file for the remaining period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn upon request by the assessee's counsel.

Reopening of Assessment under Section 147:
The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original return was processed under section 143(1), and the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 due to escaped assessment related to incorrect deductions claimed on rental income from land. The Tribunal upheld the reopening, stating that the assessment was validly reopened within four years and no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) had been conducted initially.

Addition of Capital Gains on Sale of Land:
The assessee claimed exemption on the sale of land as agricultural land under section 2(14). The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) found that no agricultural activities were conducted on the land, based on reports from the Tahsildar and other evidence. The Tribunal upheld the addition, confirming that the land was not used for agricultural purposes and thus did not qualify for exemption from capital gains.

Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e):
The assessee, a director with substantial interest in M/s. Saraswathi Broilers Pvt. Ltd., received an advance of Rs. 1,74,78,035, which was treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The assessee contended it was share application money, but the Tribunal upheld the addition, finding the transactions were separate and the amount was indeed an advance for personal purposes.

Addition towards Unexplained Cash Deposits:
The assessee failed to satisfactorily explain cash deposits amounting to Rs. 3,54,000 out of a total of Rs. 13,54,000. The Tribunal confirmed the addition under section 68, noting inconsistencies in the assessee's explanations and lack of documentary evidence.

Conclusion:
Both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the decisions made by the lower authorities on all issues. The judgment was pronounced on 24th March 2023 at Chennai.