2023 (6) TMI 339 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in property - Addition u/s 69 - HELD THAT - As u/s 69 of the Act, all that is required, is to explain the source of investment and the source of investment in the impugned property is the Euros received from Ms. Diana Perrone. No substance in the observations of the revenue authorities that the assessee has failed to explain the source of investment. AO is, accordingly, directed to delete the impugned addition - This ground is, accordingly allowed. Disallowance of 20% business expenses - CIT(A) enhancing addition to 100% receipts as unexplained income - HELD THAT - Whenever the question of taxability of income from new source of income is concerned, which had not been considered by the Assessing Officer, jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt with u/s 147/148 of the Act and u/s 263. It is unconceivable that in the presence of such specific provisions a similar power is available to the first appellate authority - we do not find any merit in the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) and the same is directed to be deleted. This Ground is allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initiation of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition on account of unexplained investment in property.
3. Enhancement of addition made on account of unexplained investment.
4. Enhancement of disallowance of business expenses.

Summary:

1. Validity of the initiation of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act:
The assessee challenged the initiation of assessment proceedings under section 147, claiming the reason recorded was unjustified and inconsistent with the facts. However, this challenge was not seriously contested during the appeal and was accordingly dismissed.

2. Addition on account of unexplained investment in property:
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 38,03,850/- to the assessee's income, believing the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of investment in a property purchased jointly with Ms. Diana Perrone. The assessee contended that Ms. Perrone paid for the property in Euros directly to the builder and gifted 50% share to the assessee. The tribunal found the source of investment to be satisfactorily explained through documentary evidence, directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 38,03,850/-.

3. Enhancement of addition made on account of unexplained investment:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had enhanced the addition from Rs. 38,03,850/- to Rs. 76,07,700/- by considering the appellant as the sole owner of the property and ignoring the fact that the appellant was a 50% owner as per the sale deed. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition without proper justification and directed the deletion of the enhanced addition.

4. Enhancement of disallowance of business expenses:
The AO disallowed 20% of the business expenses amounting to Rs. 3,28,837/- due to lack of supporting bills and vouchers. The CIT(A) further enhanced the disallowance to Rs. 18,42,480/- (100% of receipts) on the basis of suspicion that no business activity was conducted. The tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to enhance the assessment by considering a new source of income not considered by the AO, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Chamaria and Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry. The tribunal directed the deletion of the enhanced disallowance.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal partly, directing the deletion of the additions made on account of unexplained investment in property and the enhanced disallowance of business expenses, while dismissing the challenge to the reopening of the assessment.