2025 (8) TMI 820 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained Investment Addition Under Section 69 Deleted Due to Clear Proof of Legitimate Source

Pallavi Avadhut Dhage Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward-I Sector-6, Panvel

Pallavi Avadhut Dhage Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward-I Sector-6, Panvel - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening assessment. Legitimacy of addition of Rs. 54,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 in respect of immovable property purchase. Whether the property purchase in joint names with husband justifies addition in the hands of the assessee. Whether non-filing of return by the assessee is justified given her status and income. Assessment of evidentiary value of documents and bank statements submitted to establish source of funds. Consistency and correctness of appellate authority's treatment of evidence and submissions. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Notice under Section 148 - Legal Framework: Section 148 allows reopening of assessment if income has escaped assessment. The notice must be based on tangible material indicating escapement. - Court Reasoning: The reopening was based on data from the Non-filers Monitoring System indicating purchase of immovable property for Rs. 54,00,000/- by the assessee who had not filed return. - Findings: The initial premise of purchase for Rs. 54,00,000/- was factually incorrect as the property was purchased for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- jointly with the husband. - Application: Since the foundational fact for reopening was erroneous, the validity of the notice is undermined. - Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was not justified on the basis of incorrect information regarding property purchase amount. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 54,00,000/- as Unexplained Investment under Section 69 - Legal Framework: Section 69 permits addition of unexplained investments if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of investment. - Court Reasoning: The AO treated 50% of the joint property purchase price (Rs. 1,00,00,000/-) i.e., Rs. 54,00,000/- as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. - Evidence: The assessee submitted the sale deed showing joint ownership, bank statements evidencing payments made by the husband, and details of a housing loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- taken by the husband from HDFC Bank. - AO and CIT(A) Treatment: The AO made the addition despite the submissions. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim without verifying whether the husband's return was scrutinized or whether the husband admitted the investment. - Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that all funds were from the husband's income and loan, supported by documentary evidence including PAN details and bank statements. The revenue contended the documents were unverifiable and mere assertions. - Court's Interpretation: The Court noted that the husband had filed his return of income and the source of funds was clearly traceable through bank transactions and loan documents. - Application of Law: Since the source of funds was explained satisfactorily through the husband's income and loan, no addition under section 69 was warranted in the assessee's hands. - Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 54,00,000/- as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee was not justified and was rightly deleted. Issue 3: Joint Ownership and Attribution of Income/Investment - Legal Framework: Income or investment jointly held may be attributed proportionately unless evidence shows otherwise. - Court Reasoning: The property was purchased in joint names; however, the entire funding was from the husband's income and loan. - Evidence: Sale deed, bank statements, loan sanction and disbursal documents, husband's PAN and income tax return. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The CIT(A) failed to verify the husband's income and scrutiny status, leading to rejection of the assessee's claim. The Court emphasized the need to consider the husband's return and corroborative documents. - Application: Since the husband's income fully accounted for the investment, the share of the assessee in the property did not represent unexplained investment. - Conclusion: Joint ownership does not automatically lead to addition in the hands of the non-earning joint owner where source of funds is fully explained by the other joint owner. Issue 4: Non-filing of Return by the Assessee - Legal Framework: Filing of return under section 139(1) is mandatory if the assessee has taxable income. - Court Reasoning: The assessee was a housewife with no income of her own and hence not liable to file return. - Evidence: Earlier order deleting penalty under section 271F for non-filing of return after observing no taxable income. - Application: The penalty deletion order supports the position that the assessee was not required to file return. - Conclusion: Non-filing of return by the assessee was justified and cannot be a basis for adverse inference or addition. Issue 5: Evidentiary Value of Documents and Bank Statements - Legal Framework: Documentary evidence such as sale deeds, bank statements, loan documents, and income tax returns are relevant and admissible to establish source of funds. - Court Reasoning: The documents submitted by the assessee were comprehensive and verifiable, showing clear trail of funds from the husband's income and loan to the property purchase. - Findings: The AO and CIT(A) failed to properly verify or consider these documents, leading to an erroneous addition. - Application: Proper appreciation of evidence negates the unexplained investment addition. - Conclusion: The submitted documents carry sufficient evidentiary weight to establish the source of investment and negate addition. Issue 6: Consistency and Correctness of Appellate Authority's Treatment - Court Reasoning: The CIT(A) in penalty appeal had accepted the assessee's claim of no taxable income and deleted penalty. However, in the quantum appeal, the CIT(A) rejected the same claim despite acknowledging the penalty order. - Findings: This inconsistent approach undermines the credibility of the addition and points to failure to consider relevant facts holistically. - Application: The Court emphasized the need for consistent and reasoned orders considering all relevant evidence and earlier findings. - Conclusion: The appellate order confirming the addition was set aside due to failure to properly examine evidence and inconsistent reasoning.