ITAT sets aside unexplained investment addition under section 69B for property dispute settlement payment with adequate source proof

The ITAT Chennai set aside additions made by the AO under section 69B for unexplained investment regarding additional consideration paid for property purchase. The tribunal found that the additional consideration was paid in the assessment year 2013-14 to resolve a property dispute, not during the original sale deed execution. The appellant company had adequately established the source of payment through sworn statements and confirmations. The AO's reliance on isolated statements from the seller company's directors was deemed insufficient without complete evidence. The CIT(A)'s order sustaining the addition was reversed, and the AO was directed to delete the unexplained investment addition.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Sustaining the addition under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of Section 69B.
3. Consideration of payments made to remove encumbrances.
4. Presumption of applicability of Section 69B.
5. Proof of transaction and presumption of applicability.
6. Cross-verification by the revenue.
7. Addition based on suspicion and surmises.
8. Encumbrances cleared in subsequent assessment years.
9. Violation of principles of natural justice.
10. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.
11. Reopening of assessment based on misreading of search results.
12. Acceptance of payment of balance purchase consideration.
13. Effective opportunity before passing the impugned order.

Summary:

1. Sustaining the Addition under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition of Rs. 6.15 crores as unexplained investment under Section 69B. The CIT(A) upheld the addition on the grounds that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence to prove that the payment was made to clear encumbrances on the property.

2. Applicability of Section 69B:
The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of the Act had no application to the present case, thereby negating the findings in the impugned order.

3. Consideration of Payments Made to Remove Encumbrances:
The assessee argued that a sum of Rs. 4.85 crores was paid to the seller to remove encumbrances on the property during the period 01.04.2012 to 27.05.2012, negating the presumption of applicability of Section 69B.

4. Presumption of Applicability of Section 69B:
The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the presumption of applicability of Section 69B was wrong, erroneous, and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

5. Proof of Transaction and Presumption of Applicability:
The assessee provided copies of ledger accounts, court orders, and settlement memos to prove the transaction of Rs. 6.15 crores, arguing that the presumption of applicability of Section 69B was incorrect.

6. Cross-Verification by the Revenue:
The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cross-verification carried out by the revenue had no legal sanctity and overlooked the sequence of events provided by the assessee.

7. Addition Based on Suspicion and Surmises:
The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition was based on mere suspicion and surmises without considering the facts provided by the assessee.

8. Encumbrances Cleared in Subsequent Assessment Years:
The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the encumbrances were cleared in subsequent assessment years, making the rejection of the claim of payment of the disputed component unjustified.

9. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The CIT(A) failed to provide the sworn statement of the Director of Premier Roller Flour Ltd to the assessee before making the disputed addition, violating principles of natural justice.

10. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 147:
The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was without sanction of law, making the reassessment order bad in law.

11. Reopening of Assessment Based on Misreading of Search Results:
The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of the assessment based on misreading of search results was bad in law and that the reassessment completed based on suspicion should fall to the ground.

12. Acceptance of Payment of Balance Purchase Consideration:
The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rejection of the stand of the appellant in making the payment of the disputed component during 01.04.2012 to 27.05.2012 was incorrect, especially in the absence of direct evidence.

13. Effective Opportunity Before Passing the Impugned Order:
The CIT(A) failed to provide an effective opportunity before passing the impugned order, violating principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made towards additional consideration paid for the purchase of property amounting to Rs. 6.15 crores as unexplained investment under Section 69B of the Act. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

---