2014 (10) TMI 320 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal invalidates tax proceedings, rules in favor of assessee

Ms. S. Madhavi, Hyderabad Versus The Asst. CIT Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

Ms. S. Madhavi, Hyderabad Versus The Asst. CIT Circle-8(1), Hyderabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Addition of Rs. 31,02,000 as short term capital gains.3. Confirmation of Rs. 3 lakhs out of the addition of Rs. 6,78,000 made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Proceedings Initiated under Section 153C:The assessee challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arguing that the seized document did not belong to the assessee and was seized from a third party. The Tribunal noted that the seized material, page 55 of Annexure A/DNR/18, did not reference the assessee or her property and was seized from Sri D. Nagarjuna Rao. The Tribunal held that the pre-condition for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, which requires the seized material to belong to the assessee, was not satisfied. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Vijaybhai N. Chandrani vs. ACIT and other judicial precedents to support its conclusion. Consequently, the Tribunal declared the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment order as invalid.2. Addition of Rs. 31,02,000 as Short Term Capital Gains:The Assessing Officer added Rs. 31,02,000 as short term capital gains based on the seized material and statements from the purchaser and mediator, which indicated that the assessee received Rs. 37,80,000 as sale consideration. The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence that the assessee received Rs. 37,80,000, as the seized document did not reference the assessee or the property sold. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received payments through cheques from the mediator, Sri S. Venkateswara Rao, and not directly from the purchaser. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer did not allow the assessee to cross-examine the mediator, whose statement was relied upon. Without corroborative evidence, the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 31,02,000 as short term capital gains was not sustainable.3. Confirmation of Rs. 3 lakhs as Unexplained Investment:The Assessing Officer added Rs. 6,78,000 as unexplained investment, of which the CIT(A) confirmed Rs. 3 lakhs. The assessee explained that the Rs. 3 lakhs was received from her uncle, an agriculturist, and provided a confirmation. The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified, as the assessee had explained the source of the investment with necessary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the Departmental authorities should have conducted an enquiry to verify the assessee's claim. Without such an enquiry, the addition could not be sustained on mere doubts and suspicion. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, declaring the proceedings initiated under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment order as invalid. Additionally, the Tribunal deleted the additions made on account of short term capital gains and unexplained investment, concluding that the evidence did not support the Assessing Officer's findings.