2020 (4) TMI 556 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal admitted after 78-day delay for medical reasons, assessee taxed for 50% property share under Income Tax Act.

The appeal was admitted despite a delay of 78 days due to medical reasons. The assessee was treated as a co-owner for 50% share of a property under ... Addition u/s 69B - AO treated the assessee as co-owner for 50% share of the property and taxed 50% of the sale consideration along with stamp duty as unexplained sources u/s 69B - contention of the assessee is that the assessee is only having 10% in the total investment, thus requested to delete the addition made by the AO over and above the 10% of share - HELD THAT:- Agreement dated 31.12.2010 between the assessee and the other co-owners was unregistered and the stamp paper was purchased on 24.03.2005. Since the property was registered on 15.06.2012 and the Registered sale deed do not support the purported agreement dated 31.12.2010, the agreement dated 31.12.2010 appears to be an afterthought hence, rejected. On perusal of the sale deed, there was no mention with regard to shares of the parties - lower authorities rightly assessed 50% of the share of the property in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. Taxing share of 50% u/s 69B - From the perusal of the sale deed, the assessee has made the investment to the extent of ₹ 26.59 lakhs jointly along with other co- owners in the F.Y.2013-14 for which the assessee could not explain the source. Therefore, we hold that the sum of ₹ 13,29,500/- (being 50% of 26.59 lakhs) required to be brought to tax and the remaining amount should be deleted - Set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to verify the actual payments made during the year and decide the issue. The appeal is remitted to the file of the AO for a limited purpose of verifying the actual dates and the actual payment made in the impugned assessment year and to make the addition representing the investment made in the impugned assessment year. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Issues:Delay in filing appeal, Addition u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Shareholding percentage determination, Taxation of share u/s 69B of the Act.Delay in filing appeal:The appeal was filed with a delay of 78 days, citing medical reasons. The assessee requested condonation of the delay, which was granted after hearing both parties. The appeal was admitted despite the delay.Addition u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act:The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee purchased property along with another individual, but failed to provide details during assessment. As a result, the AO treated the assessee as a co-owner for 50% share of the property and taxed it as unexplained income u/s 69B. The CIT(A) upheld this decision.Shareholding percentage determination:The assessee contended that they only had a 10% share in the property, presenting an unregistered agreement as evidence. However, since the agreement was dated after the property registration and lacked details in the sale deed, the claim was rejected. The tribunal upheld the 50% share assessment.Taxation of share u/s 69B of the Act:The tribunal considered the payments made for acquiring the property and determined that only a portion of the total amount paid, along with stamp duty, needed to be taxed in the relevant assessment year. It was decided that 50% of the consideration paid during the year should be brought to tax, amounting to a specific sum. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remitted to the AO for further verification and decision.In conclusion, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, the addition u/s 69B was upheld, the shareholding percentage was determined to be 50%, and the taxation of the share u/s 69B was calculated based on the payments made for acquiring the property. The tribunal directed the AO to verify actual payments and make necessary additions accordingly.