2025 (2) TMI 164 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in property - HELD THAT - Payments made by her towards purchase of property through cheques and admitted in her solemnised affidavit cannot be treated as unexplained investment in the hands of assessee. Both sources of investment in property are sufficiently explained. Being so we are inclined to delete the addition upheld by CIT(A). Decided in favour of assessee.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Tribunal considered two core legal issues in this appeal:

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was void ab initio due to a jurisdictional defect, given that the notice under Section 143(2) and the assessment were conducted by officers allegedly lacking jurisdiction over the assessee.

2. Whether the addition of Rs. 70,13,980/- under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for unexplained investment in a residential property was justified, considering the assessee's claims regarding the sources of funds.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Jurisdictional Defect in Assessment Order

The Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue, as the parties agreed that if the addition under Section 69 was resolved in favor of the assessee, the jurisdictional issue could remain open without a decision. Thus, the Tribunal focused on the second issue regarding the addition under Section 69.

Issue 2: Addition under Section 69 for Unexplained Investment

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act permits the addition of unexplained investments to the income of an assessee if the assessee cannot satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the investment. The burden is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Tribunal examined whether the assessee had adequately explained the source of funds for the investment in the residential property. The CIT(A) had partially accepted the assessee's explanation, recognizing Rs. 60,00,000/- as explained but upheld the addition of Rs. 70,13,980/- due to insufficient evidence regarding the remaining funds.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The Tribunal analyzed two main sources of funds claimed by the assessee:

(i) A loan of Rs. 80,00,000/- from Mr. Zafar Mohd. Khan, the assessee's brother, transferred via RTGS. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including an affidavit from Mr. Zafar, his PAN, and bank statements showing the RTGS transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were established.

(ii) A direct payment of Rs. 23,00,000/- by Mrs. Shama Mohd., the assessee's wife, who was also a joint owner of the property. The Tribunal noted that the payments were made via cheque, and the registered deed listed both the assessee and Mrs. Shama as purchasers. The Tribunal found this explanation satisfactory.

Application of Law to Facts:

The Tribunal applied Section 69, emphasizing the requirement for the assessee to demonstrate the source of investment. Given the evidence provided, the Tribunal determined that the assessee had met the burden of proof for the disputed amount.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The Tribunal considered the CIT(A)'s rejection of the assessee's explanations due to the lack of certain documents, such as income tax returns and bank statements. However, the Tribunal found that the available evidence, including affidavits and bank records, sufficiently established the sources of funds.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee successfully explained the sources of the entire investment in the property, and thus, the addition of Rs. 70,13,980/- under Section 69 was unwarranted. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's significant holding was the deletion of the addition of Rs. 70,13,980/- under Section 69, based on the satisfactory explanation of the sources of funds. The Tribunal underscored the necessity for the Revenue to consider all available evidence and not to dismiss explanations without due consideration of the context and relationships involved, such as familial ties and joint ownership.

The Tribunal's decision reinforced the principle that an assessee's burden under Section 69 is discharged when credible evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness is provided, even if not all documentary evidence initially requested is available.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the jurisdictional issue, leaving it open as per the agreement between the parties, given the resolution of the substantive issue on the merits.

← Previous Next →