2018 (6) TMI 1606 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rejects addition under section 69B, rules in favor of assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 3 (3), Ahmedabad Versus Dharmaja Infrastructure

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the lack of sufficient ... Unexplained investment u/s.69B - addition is made solely on the basis of market value of land, as adopted by the sub-registrar, as true value of purchase of land - HELD THAT:- As decided in VIRJIBHAI KALYANBHAI KUKADIA [2012 (10) TMI 791 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] provisions of Sec.50C cannot be applied for making addition u/s. 69B. In the present case, since the A.O. has relied on the jantry rates without bringing any material on record to prove that assessee has in fact made investments over and above than that recorded in the books, no addition can be made in the present case and therefore no interference is called for to the order of CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. Issues:- Appeal against order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2011-12.- Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained investment under section 69B.- Difference in facts between the present case and a previous case.- Consideration of Jantry value as fixed by the Registrar.Analysis:1. The appeal challenges the order of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the addition of unexplained investment under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contested the deletion of the addition of a specific amount, arguing that the facts of the case differed from a previous case cited by the CIT(A). Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about the consideration of Jantry value as fixed by the Registrar.2. The Tribunal noted that the impugned addition was based on the market value of land, adopted by the sub-registrar as the true value of the land purchase. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision by a co-ordinate bench in a similar case, emphasizing the conditions under section 69B for deeming undisclosed investments as income. The Tribunal highlighted that for an addition under section 69B, it must be established that the assessee made investments exceeding the recorded amount in the books of account, and the explanation provided by the assessee must be unsatisfactory.3. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) estimated the undisclosed investment based on the jantri price of land without providing supporting material. The Tribunal clarified that section 50C, dealing with stamp duty rates as consideration for capital gains, is not applicable to the purchaser of property for the purpose of section 69B. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to demonstrate that the real investment exceeds the amount shown in the books of accounts.4. Referring to decisions by various High Courts and previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of section 50C cannot be used to make additions under section 69B. The Tribunal emphasized that the A.O. must prove with sufficient material that the actual investment surpasses the recorded amount in the books. As the A.O. relied solely on jantri rates without supporting evidence, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order based on the co-ordinate bench decision and declined to interfere in the matter, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the addition under section 69B. The judgment was pronounced on June 6, 2018, in favor of the assessee.