2025 (8) TMI 1511 - AT - Income Tax

Section 69 addition deleted after non-resident proved flat purchase funds with salary remittances to NRE account and bank records

Dilip Marutirao Kalyankar c/o. Umesh Kalyankar Versus ITO, International Taxation–3 (1) (1), Mumbai

Dilip Marutirao Kalyankar c/o. Umesh Kalyankar Versus ITO, International Taxation–3 (1) (1), Mumbai - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether additions framed under section 69 (unexplained investment) can be sustained where the assessee furnishes documentary bank evidence and remand report of the Assessing Officer establishes a tracing of funds from foreign salary remittances through NRE accounts and inter-bank transfers to meet property acquisition payments. 2. Whether an addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) (deemed consideration on account of difference between declared consideration and stamp valuation) is sustainable where (a) the agreement fixing consideration predates the registration date, and (b) part of the consideration (booking amount and further payments) was paid by mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement so that the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies. 3. Whether directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel sustaining additions are binding where the Assessing Officer, on remand, examines additional evidence and records findings of fact favorable to the assessee. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of additions under section 69 (unexplained investment) Legal framework: Section 69 permits addition to income where any investment is made and the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation about the source. The AO must examine and be satisfied that source remains unexplained; documentary proof and bank account trails are relevant to discharge the onus of explanation. Precedent Treatment: No prior judicial authorities are invoked or considered in the text; decision rests on statutory provision and factual findings recorded after remand. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the remand report prepared by the AO after verification of bank statements and documentary material supplied during DRP proceedings. The AO traced funds of Rs. 73,85,962 (out of contested Rs. 75,22,625) for the MHADA purchase to salary remittances credited to the assessee's Citibank and SBI NRE accounts and subsequent transfers via Abhyudaya and SVC banks, including payments effected through the assessee's brother as intermediary. For the Neptune Developers flat, the AO traced Rs. 1,42,29,073 of the declared consideration through a consistent trail: remittances from Citibank NRE to brothers, consolidation in the parents' SVC account (where assessee was joint-holder), transfers from Abhyudaya/SBI NRE and withdrawals of fixed deposits; specific receipts in the assessment year (Rs. 25,11,843) were evidenced and reconciled. The AO explicitly recorded that the flat was booked in November 2010 and payments were periodic thereafter, and that the source of funds, as shown by bank records, explained the investments. Ratio vs. Obiter: The AO's remand findings that bank statements and documentary evidence trace the funds constitute findings of fact and form the operative ratio for deleting additions under section 69 in this matter. Observations about possible interest elements or parental savings residual in the balance are ancillary and do not form a basis to sustain addition. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that, where the AO after remand accepts and records that the source of funds is satisfactorily traced to foreign salary remittances and inter-bank transfers, the Dispute Resolution Panel was not justified in sustaining part of the addition. The addition of Rs. 1,06,56,120 under section 69 is therefore deleted (ground allowed). Cross-reference: issue of DRP directions considered in Issue 3 below. Issue 2 - Addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) on account of stamp valuation mismatch Legal framework: Section 56(2)(vii)(b) deems receipt of property consideration to be the stamp valuation where declared consideration is less than stamp valuation on date of registration; proviso permits use of stamp duty value on the date of the agreement fixing consideration (if that date differs from registration) provided the consideration or part thereof was paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement. Precedent Treatment: No judicial precedents are cited; the issue was decided on statutory construction of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) and factual verification. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted the AO's remand finding that the booking (agreement fixing consideration) was on 17.11.2010 with a cheque payment of Rs. 51,000, and that major part of consideration was paid up to FY 2014-15 with only Rs. 25,11,843 in FY 2015-16. The AO obtained a valuation report showing stamp duty value as on November 2010 (FY 2010-11) to be Rs. 62,95,864, materially lower than the declared sale consideration (Rs. 1,46,18,514). The AO therefore concluded both limbs of the proviso were satisfied: (i) the agreement date differs from registration date, and (ii) part of the consideration was paid by non-cash mode on or before the agreement date (booking cheque). Thus, for purposes of section 56(2)(vii)(b), the stamp duty value as on the agreement date should be adopted and compared with declared consideration; comparison shows declared consideration exceeded stamp duty value on that earlier date. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Tribunal's determination that the proviso applies and that declared consideration is not less than stamp duty value as on agreement date is central to the ratio on this issue; there is no obiter reliance on other matters. Conclusions: The addition of Rs. 46,54,986 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be sustained because the proviso applies and the declared sale consideration on the agreement date equals or exceeds the stamp duty value on that date; the AO is directed to delete the addition. Issue 3 - Effect of DRP directions where AO, on remand, records favorable factual findings Legal framework: The DRP may direct adjustments after considering objections; however, the factual correctness of additions depends on the AO's verification of evidence. Where the assessee furnishes new documentary evidence before DRP and the AO, on remand, analyzes and records factual findings, those findings are material to sustain or delete additions. Precedent Treatment: No separate precedent is cited; Tribunal applied facts and statutory procedure for remand and DRP directions. Interpretation and reasoning: The DRP sustained part of the draft additions despite the assessee filing additional evidence and seeking remand verification. The AO's remand report, however, reconciling bank statements and documentary evidence, recorded that substantial portions of both investments were traced to verifiable sources. The Tribunal held that where the AO examines the new evidence and records findings that the source is explained, the DRP's earlier sustaining of addition lacks justification to the extent contrary to AO's verified findings. Ratio vs. Obiter: The ratio is that DRP directions cannot sustain an addition when the AO, after verification on remand, records positive findings of source and tracing; this is a decision on the operative facts of the appeal rather than an abstract obiter remark. Conclusions: In view of the AO's remand findings accepting bank-traceable sources, the Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by DRP (deletion of section 69 addition and section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition). The Tribunal further held that antecedent legal challenges to reopening (grounds 1-3) became academic in light of merits decision and were kept open.