2019 (6) TMI 826 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decision on Tax Appeal, Citing Errors of Law

SMT. RUKSHANA BEGUM Versus ITO, WARD 2 (2), GHAZIABAD

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal, citing fundamental errors of law and miscarriage of justice. The notice u/s 148 of the ... Reopening of assessment - unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- The entire source of investment in the impugned property is out of the money received from her husband and the assessee has failed to explain the source of investment. The assessee has failed to prove the nexus between the cash available to her husband and the cash used by her for the investment in the impugned property. It was further noted that the husband of the assessee has deposited an amount of ₹ 10 lacs in cash in his bank account. In any case any money available with her husband has nothing to do with the investment made by the assessee. Since no evidence was furnished for the other half investment in the said property, the entire investment to ₹ 30,29,000/- was rightly considered to be unexplained in the hand of the assessee. Therefore, CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition in dispute, which does not need any interference on my part, therefore, uphold the action of the CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the grounds raised by the Assessee. Issues:1. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on grounds of fundamental errors of law.2. Validity of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act issued after 6 years.3. Validity of service of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act.4. Determination of sale consideration for property.5. Application of section 50C of I.T. Act for sale consideration.6. Treatment of investment in property as unexplained.7. Nexus between cash available with husband and investment made by assessee.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing it based on fundamental errors of law and miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that the AO lacked tangible material and the belief formed was speculative, rendering the assessment void. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the notice u/s 148 was issued within the prescribed time limit and served properly, and the investment source in the property was unexplained due to lack of evidence.2. The appellant contended that the notice u/s 148 issued after 6 years was time-barred. However, the Tribunal found that the notice was issued with prior approval and served on the correct address, thus rejecting the appellant's argument and upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.3. The issue of valid service of notice u/s 148 was raised by the appellant, claiming lack of supporting evidence for the validity of service. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the notice was served on the address available on the sale deed, thereby affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.4. Regarding the determination of sale consideration for the property, the appellant argued that the actual consideration was Rs. 15,00,000, not Rs. 30,29,000. However, the Tribunal noted that the source of investment was unexplained, leading to the confirmation of the addition in dispute by the CIT(A).5. The appellant challenged the application of section 50C of the I.T. Act for determining the sale consideration. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the entire investment of Rs. 30,29,000 was considered unexplained due to lack of evidence, thereby confirming the addition.6. The Tribunal addressed the treatment of the investment in the property as unexplained, emphasizing the lack of evidence for the other half of the investment. As a result, the entire investment amount was deemed unexplained in the hands of the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.7. Lastly, the nexus between the cash available with the husband and the investment made by the assessee was questioned. The Tribunal noted that the husband deposited Rs. 10 lakhs in cash, but this was not connected to the investment made by the assessee. Since no evidence was provided for the other half of the investment, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the entire investment as unexplained, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.