2018 (9) TMI 288 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Rs. 44,05,000 Property Investment Addition, Assessee's Appeal Dismissed

Ms. Nikunj Malik Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-II (1), Faridabad

Ms. Nikunj Malik Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-II (1), Faridabad - TMI Issues:Challenge against addition of investment in propertyAnalysis:The appeal was filed against the addition of Rs. 44,05,000 on account of investment in the purchase of property for the assessment year 2014-2015. The assessee did not maintain any books of account, and the case was selected for scrutiny due to a large investment in property compared to total income. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations regarding the source of investment, initially claiming it was a gift from a maternal uncle. However, no evidence was provided to support this claim. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) issued multiple notices, but the explanations provided were deemed unsatisfactory. The A.O. concluded that the investment was made from undisclosed sources, leading to the addition in question.The assessee challenged this addition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], submitting additional evidence including affidavits. The explanation provided by the assessee was related to family dynamics and the transfer of property from the father to the mother and then to the assessee. However, the A.O. reported contradictions in the statements made by the assessee. Further investigation revealed that the property was registered as a sale deed for a cash consideration of Rs. 42,90,000, contradicting the claim of it being a gift transaction. The CIT(A) upheld the addition based on the evidence and explanations provided.During the Tribunal hearing, the assessee reiterated the claim that the transaction was a gift and not a sale. However, the Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee failed to provide concrete evidence supporting the claim of the property transfer being a gift. The registered sale deed indicated a cash transaction for the property purchase. The Tribunal emphasized that the contents of a registered document cannot be disputed through oral evidence. The assessee's explanations were considered contradictory and lacking in evidentiary support. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition made by the A.O. and CIT(A) regarding the investment in the property.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of investment in the property adequately. The explanations provided were deemed inconsistent and unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 44,05,000 as the investment in the property, dismissing the appeal of the assessee.