Revenue's appeal fails as sections 69 and 69C don't apply when third party makes payments for assessee's purchases

ITAT Mumbai dismissed revenue's appeal challenging deletion of additions under sections 69 and 69C. The assessee received funds from a third party for property and car purchases. The tribunal held that section 69 provisions cannot apply when payments were made by another person, not the assessee. The assessee satisfactorily explained the nature and source of funds with supporting evidence, including loan confirmation documents. Revenue's alternative argument to tax amounts under section 56(2) as gifts was rejected since this ground was not originally examined by AO or CIT(A), and revenue cannot raise fresh contentions. The tribunal found no undisclosed expenditure warranting additions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 1.39 Crore related to investments in flat/immovable property.
2. Addition of Rs. 40 Lacs related to investment in the purchase of a car.
3. Assessment of the true nature of transactions under relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

1. The appeal by the revenue challenged the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and CIT(A) regarding the quantum of assessment for the A.Y. 2017-18. The revenue raised grounds questioning the sustainability of additions made under sections 69 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, particularly related to investments in immovable property and a car. The AO initially added substantial amounts under these sections, but subsequent investigations revealed discrepancies in the assessment.

2. The assessee, engaged in the profession of a TV artist, faced allegations of high-volume transactions based on information from the INSIGHT portal. The AO made additions under sections 69 and 69C for the purchase of property and a motor vehicle, along with cash credits in the bank account. The CIT(A) intervened after the assessee submitted additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, leading to a remand report that significantly reduced the undisclosed investment amounts.

3. The CIT(A) analyzed the remand report, submissions by the assessee, and documents provided, ultimately deciding to delete the additions made by the AO. The revenue, however, contended that the additions should be taxable under section 56(2) of the Act, arguing that the transactions should be treated as gifts due to the assessee's alleged incapacity to repay. The assessee countered with evidence of loans and repayments, disputing the characterization of the transactions as gifts.

4. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, emphasizing the need for the AO to establish unrecorded investments before invoking section 69. In this case, the nature and source of payments were adequately explained by the assessee, supported by documentation. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's attempt to introduce section 56(2) at a later stage, highlighting the lack of discussion on this aspect in previous orders.

5. Regarding the addition related to the car purchase, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the amount added under section 69C. The documents provided during the remand proceedings clarified the sources of funds for the purchase, leading to the conclusion that the expenditure was not undisclosed. The revenue's argument for taxation under section 56(2) was deemed meritless, given the established sources of funds.

6. The Tribunal dismissed the technical ground raised by the revenue as infructuous, leading to the final decision to dismiss the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiating unrecorded investments and the inadmissibility of introducing new tax provisions without prior consideration.

---