ITAT deletes section 69A addition after assessee proves legitimate property purchase with bank loan funding

Smt. Prameela Parameshwar Shettigar Versus ITO Ward-2 (1), Mangalore.

Smt. Prameela Parameshwar Shettigar Versus ITO Ward-2 (1), Mangalore. - TMI Issues:
1. Condoning delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of assessment order based on wrong information.
3. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-payment of advance tax.
4. Addition of unexplained money under section 69A.
5. Jurisdictional validity of reassessment.
6. Tax liability under sections 115BBE and 234B.

Condoning delay in filing the appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 89 days, citing reasons related to pursuing remedies under section 154 of the Act. The Department argued that there was no valid reason for the delay. The Tribunal, after considering the explanations provided, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

Validity of assessment order based on wrong information:
The assessment was initiated based on information from the National e-Assessment Centre, alleging a property purchase for Rs. 45 Lakhs by the assessee. However, the actual transaction was for Rs. 31 Lakhs, supported by documents. The Tribunal found the addition of Rs. 14 Lakhs as unexplained money to be erroneous and lacking factual basis. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-payment of advance tax:
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of non-payment of advance tax, invoking section 249(4) of the Act. The appellant contested this, stating that the initiation of assessment proceedings was illegal due to incorrect information. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, ruling that without the disputed addition, there was no tax liability, and hence, no obligation to pay advance tax.

Addition of unexplained money under section 69A:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 14 Lakhs as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The appellant challenged this addition before the CIT(A) and subsequently before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the basis of the addition to be incorrect and lacking merit, leading to the deletion of the said addition.

Jurisdictional validity of reassessment:
The appellant contended that the reassessment was void ab initio due to the lack of jurisdictional requirements under section 148 of the Act. The Tribunal, after examining the facts and documents, concluded that the reassessment was based on incorrect assumptions and lacked legal basis. Consequently, the reassessment was canceled.

Tax liability under sections 115BBE and 234B:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the tax imposed under sections 115BBE and 234B of the Act. The Tribunal, after analyzing the facts and circumstances, found no justification for sustaining the tax liability imposed under these sections. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal.

This judgment addresses various issues, including condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the validity of the assessment order based on incorrect information, dismissal of the appeal for non-payment of advance tax, addition of unexplained money, jurisdictional validity of reassessment, and tax liabilities under specific sections of the Act. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on multiple grounds, highlighting errors in the assessment process, lack of tax liability due to incorrect additions, and procedural flaws in the reassessment. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the additions made by the AO were deleted.