9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1413 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained source of income and taxed as per the provision of section 115BBE - AO made the addition under consideration on the reason that there is difference in the claim of the Assessee in original and new return filed in response to notice u/s 148 and no proof regarding the same was submitted whereas the Assessee has claimed that he has duly submitted the relevant details as submitted before the Tribunal - HELD THAT - Assessee no doubt is entitled to get the statutory deductions under chapter VIA of the Act as per limit prescribed and cannot be denied benefit of the same simply on the reason that earlier in the original return of income the Assessee has claimed lower amount than the claimed amount in the subsequent return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act especially when the subsequent return is accepted. And therefore in order to cut short the controversy and for substantial justice the addition is also deleted however subject to verification of the relevant documents and clarification pertaining to the issue under consideration by the AO. Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issues considered in this judgment are: 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 8,09,600/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified. 2. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 41,664/- claimed under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was appropriate due to lack of documentary evidence. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 8,09,600/- as Unexplained Investment Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertains to unexplained investments, where the burden of proof lies on the taxpayer to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the investment. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the facts and evidence provided by the Assessee, which included the partnership in M/s. Sonam Builders and the payments made through proper banking channels in 2006. The Assessee's capital account in the partnership firm was reduced by the respective shares, indicating a legitimate source of funds. Key Evidence and Findings: The Assessee submitted ledger copies, purchase deeds, and details of payments made through cheques in 2006 to demonstrate the source of funds. The payments were recorded as drawings in the books of Sonam Builders, reducing the partner's capital account accordingly. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the Assessee had adequately demonstrated the source of the investment through credible documentation and that the authorities below had dismissed these documents based on assumptions and presumptions. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument was that the Assessee had not justified the source of investment satisfactorily. However, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence provided by the Assessee was sufficient to explain the source of funds, thus rendering the addition unsustainable. Conclusions: The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 8,09,600/-, concluding that the Assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of the investment. Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 41,664/- under Chapter VI-A Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for deductions from gross total income, subject to certain conditions and limits. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered the Assessee's claim that deductions were made under Sections 80C, 80G, and 80TTA of the Act. The Assessee argued that the deductions were legitimate and supported by documentation. Key Evidence and Findings: The Assessee provided details of the deductions claimed, including life insurance premiums and donations, which were not initially submitted to the Assessing Officer. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that the Assessee is entitled to statutory deductions under Chapter VI-A and cannot be denied these benefits due to discrepancies between the original and revised returns, especially when the revised return was accepted. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's stance was that the Assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the increased deduction claim. The Tribunal, however, emphasized the Assessee's right to statutory deductions and the need for verification of the submitted documents. Conclusions: The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 41,664/-, subject to verification of the relevant documents by the Assessing Officer. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core Principles Established: The Tribunal underscored the importance of considering documentary evidence provided by the taxpayer and cautioned against dismissing such evidence based on assumptions. It also reinforced the taxpayer's entitlement to statutory deductions under Chapter VI-A. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting both the addition of Rs. 8,09,600/- as unexplained investment and the disallowance of Rs. 41,664/- under Chapter VI-A, subject to verification of the latter by the Assessing Officer.
|
