2019 (3) TMI 905 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Appeals Decisions: Partial Allowance, Recalculation Directive

Smt. Anju Singh Versus ACIT Central Circle 1 Lucknow

Smt. Anju Singh Versus ACIT Central Circle 1 Lucknow - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality and procedural fairness of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].2. Adequacy of opportunity of being heard provided by CIT(A).3. Sustaining additions under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act on account of unexplained investments based on the Valuation Officer's report.4. Granting full benefit of the amount surrendered by Shri K. N. Singh Patel.5. Relief sought by the appellant in appeal.6. Additional grounds of appeal raised during the pendency of the appeal.7. Specific grounds for assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2009-10.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Procedural Fairness of the Order Passed by CIT(A):The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in law and facts by passing an order that was illegal, improper, and against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided adequate opportunity for the appellant to present their case and had followed the due process of law. Therefore, this ground was rejected.2. Adequacy of Opportunity of Being Heard Provided by CIT(A):The appellant contended that they were not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed provided sufficient opportunities for the appellant to present their case, and thus, this ground was also rejected.3. Sustaining Additions Under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act on Account of Unexplained Investments Based on the Valuation Officer's Report:The appellant challenged the additions made under Section 69 based on the Valuation Officer's report, arguing that the report had various infirmities. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed part relief by ignoring the Valuation Report estimates where the difference between the declared value and the valuation report was less than 15%. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to ignore minor differences in valuation and accepted the appellant's declared values where the differences were minimal.4. Granting Full Benefit of the Amount Surrendered by Shri K. N. Singh Patel:The appellant argued that the authorities should have taken a holistic view and considered the entire surrendered amount by Shri K. N. Singh Patel against the investments made by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had allowed relief where the year of investment and the year of surrender matched but had not allowed set-off where there was a mismatch. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the additions by considering the total surrender amount against the total investments in various properties, irrespective of the year of investment.5. Relief Sought by the Appellant in Appeal:The appellant sought relief for the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had already provided substantial relief by ignoring minor valuation differences and allowing set-off for the surrendered amount. However, for the remaining additions, the Tribunal directed a recalculation as mentioned in the previous issue.6. Additional Grounds of Appeal Raised During the Pendency of the Appeal:The appellant reserved the right to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any ground of appeal during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal did not find any new grounds raised that required separate adjudication.7. Specific Grounds for Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2009-10:Assessment Year 2004-05:- The CIT(A) reduced the addition from Rs. 8,06,600/- to Rs. 1,66,600/- by allowing part relief based on withdrawals in the capital account. The Tribunal upheld this decision, rejecting the appellant's contention that the balance should be considered part of the surrender.Assessment Year 2005-06:- The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,86,500/- for the property purchased, as the appellant failed to provide further evidence. The Tribunal upheld this decision.Assessment Year 2009-10:- The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 2.50 lakhs on account of low household expenses, as the appellant did not provide evidence for the source of acquisition of household goods. The Tribunal upheld this decision.Conclusion:The appeals for assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 were partly allowed for statistical purposes and partly dismissed, while the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the additions by considering the total surrender amount against the total investments in various properties, irrespective of the year of investment.