ITAT remands case to A.O. for re-examination in line with decision. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

The ITAT set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the case to the A.O. for re-examination in line with the decision in the case of the assessee's wife. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the A.O. to reconsider the matter according to the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment.
2. Partial confirmation of the addition of Rs. 17,50,000/- as unexplained investment in land and building under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Ownership of the land and building during the assessment year 2009-2010.
4. Transfer of land and/or building under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act by the assessee's wife.
5. Application of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act to determine the full value of consideration.
6. Basis of investment in the building during the assessment year 2009-2010.
7. Reliance on incorrect entry made by the assessee in the books of accounts.
8. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order Passed by the Ld. CIT(A):
The assessee challenged the legality of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of unexplained investment. The A.O. observed that the assessee purchased land and building for Rs. 3,20,000/- but the Sub-Registrar valued the property at Rs. 20,00,000/-. The A.O. added Rs. 17,50,000/- as unexplained investment due to the discrepancy between the declared and assessed value.

2. Partial Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 17,50,000/-:
The Ld. CIT(A) partially confirmed the addition of Rs. 17,50,000/- as unexplained investment in land and building under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the land was sold to him in 1996 and was in his custody since then, but the registry was delayed due to restrictions. The Ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief based on the detailed reasoning given in the case of the assessee's wife, who was charged with long-term and short-term capital gains.

3. Ownership of the Land and Building:
The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee's wife was the owner of the land and building during the assessment year 2009-2010. The assessee contended that the property was in his custody since 1996, and the registry in 2008 was merely a formalization of the earlier transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the fact that the property was registered in the assessee's wife's name, leading to the conclusion that she was the owner.

4. Transfer of Land and/or Building:
The Ld. CIT(A) held that there was a transfer of land and/or building under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act by the assessee's wife to the assessee during the assessment year 2009-2010. The assessee argued that the transfer did not result in the transfer of the superstructure/building, and the land was already in his possession since 1996.

5. Application of Section 50C:
The Ld. CIT(A) applied Section 50C of the Income Tax Act to determine the full value of consideration for the land at Rs. 10,00,000/-. The assessee contended that the investment in the land was Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rs. 10,00,000/- minus Rs. 2,50,000/-), but the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s valuation.

6. Basis of Investment in the Building:
The Ld. CIT(A) held that the investment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the building during the assessment year 2009-2010 was based on conjectures and surmise. The assessee argued that the investment was incorrectly attributed to him and was merely a book entry.

7. Reliance on Incorrect Entry:
The Ld. CIT(A) relied on an incorrect entry made by the assessee in the books of accounts, which showed an addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the sale of land and building. The assessee contended that this was a notional entry and not an actual transaction.

8. Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was time-barred by 50 days, but the delay was condoned based on the precedent set in the case of the assessee's wife, where the delay was due to the illness and subsequent death of the assessee's husband. The ITAT condoned the delay and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the A.O. to re-examine the matter in light of the decision in the case of the assessee's wife.

Conclusion:
The ITAT set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the file of the A.O. for re-examination in light of the decision in the case of the assessee's wife. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the A.O. was directed to re-decide the matter as per law.

---