2025 (6) TMI 787 - AT - Income Tax

High-Stakes Tax Dispute: Husband's Prior Assessment Blocks Duplicate Taxation on Property Investment Under Section 271AAB

The HC examined an income tax case involving an unexplained property investment. The court ruled that no addition could be made in the assessee's hands ... Unexplained investment in property - HELD THAT:- Addition has already been in the hands of assessee's erstwhile husband. Hence any addition made in the hands of the assessee for the very same property would only result in double addition, which mistake had been duly rectified by the CIT-A by giving relief to the assessee herein. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CITA in this regard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in the quantum appeal are dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this appeal were:Whether the addition of Rs. 7,29,05,000/- made in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment in a property situated at Plot No. 80, Sector 15A, Noida, was justified under the facts and circumstances of the case;Whether the addition made in the hands of the assessee's husband for the entire property value precludes a similar addition in the hands of the assessee, in order to avoid double addition;Whether penalty under section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rightly levied or rightly deleted consequent to the quantum appeal decision.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue: Justification of addition of Rs. 7,29,05,000/- as unexplained investment in property in the hands of the assesseeRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly sections 153A (assessment in case of search) and 144 (best judgment assessment), empower the Assessing Officer (AO) to make additions on account of unexplained investments discovered during search and seizure operations. The principle of avoiding double taxation or double addition in income tax assessments is well recognized, ensuring that the same income or investment is not taxed twice in the hands of different persons without justification.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Court examined the facts that a search and seizure operation was conducted under section 132 on 9-10-2013, and incriminating documents were seized from the assessee's premises. The AO observed that the assessee was co-owner of the property with her husband and made an addition of half the total investment amounting to Rs. 7,29,05,000/- as unexplained investment. The assessee contended that she had not made any payment towards the property and that the entire consideration was paid by her husband from his own funds and bank borrowings.The Court noted that the assessee produced the sale deed showing the entire payment of Rs. 13,00,00,000/- plus stamp duty of Rs. 65,00,000/- was made by her husband, with Rs. 3,00,00,000/- paid from his Axis Bank account and Rs. 10,00,00,000/- as a loan from Bank of Baroda. The AO had made a similar addition of Rs. 14,58,10,000/- in the hands of the husband for the same property. The statement of the assessee on oath, recorded in the husband's assessment order, clarified that the property was entirely purchased by the husband. The Court observed that the CIT(A) had appreciated these facts and deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee, concluding that the AO failed to bring anything on record to prove that the assessee had made any undisclosed investment in the property.Key Evidence and Findings:- Transfer deed cum sale deed evidencing payment made entirely by the husband.- Statement of the assessee on oath confirming non-investment in the property.- Assessment order of the husband confirming addition of the entire investment amount.- Absence of any adverse comments from the AO in the remand report sought by the CIT(A).Application of Law to Facts:The principle that the same investment cannot be added twice in the hands of two different persons without evidence of separate investment was applied. Since the entire investment was made by the husband and the addition was confirmed in his assessment, no addition could be sustained in the hands of the assessee.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The revenue contended that the addition was justified in the hands of the assessee as co-owner. However, the Court found that the revenue did not controvert the factual findings recorded by the CIT(A) and failed to demonstrate any evidence that the assessee herself had made any payment towards the property. The Court also emphasized that allowing addition in the hands of the assessee would result in double addition, which was not permissible.Conclusions:The Court upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,29,05,000/- in the hands of the assessee, holding that the AO failed to prove any investment by the assessee and that the addition had already been made and confirmed in the hands of the husband.Issue: Levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Income-tax ActRelevant Legal Framework:Section 271AAB imposes penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, particularly in cases involving search and seizure. However, if the addition on quantum appeal is deleted, the penalty is generally not sustainable.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:Since the quantum appeal was decided in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition, the Court held that no penalty under section 271AAB could be sustained. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the penalty consequent to the deletion of the addition.Application of Law to Facts:The penalty was directly linked to the addition made on account of unexplained investment. With the deletion of the addition, the penalty lacked foundation.Conclusions:The penalty under section 271AAB was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) and the Court upheld the same.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The appeal filed against addition of Rs. 14,58,10,000/- made in the hands of Sh. Piyush Tiwari in AY 2014-15 has been dismissed for want of prosecution by CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur... Therefore the addition on account of undisclosed investment in the property situated at Plot No. 80, Sector 15A, Noida has already been made and confirmed in the hands of Sh. Piyush Tiwari... Thus, it is concluded that AO could not bring anything on record, from which it may be derived that the appellant i.e. Smt. Shikha Tiwari has made any undisclosed investment in the property under consideration.''Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that in the matter of investment made in the property situated at House No. 80, Sector 15A, Noida, the AO failed to bring anything on record from which it may be proved that appellant has made any investment which may be added in her hands. Therefore the addition of Rs. 7,29,05,000/- made in the hands of the appellant is hereby deleted.'Core principles established include:An addition on account of unexplained investment cannot be made in the hands of a co-owner when the entire investment is proved to have been made by the other co-owner;Double addition for the same investment in the hands of two persons is impermissible;Penalty under section 271AAB is not sustainable once the quantum addition is deleted.Final determinations:The addition of Rs. 7,29,05,000/- in the hands of the assessee was deleted;The penalty under section 271AAB was deleted;Both the quantum and penalty appeals of the revenue were dismissed.