Unaccounted 'on-money' for land must be apportioned pro rata among joint owners; additions deleted where assessee proved 40% share

ITAT held that unaccounted "on-money" paid for land must be apportioned among joint/co-owners pro rata, not taxed entirely in one hand. Assessee had admitted 40% share but had offered Rs.1,12,50,000 (over 80% of on-money) during search; AO failed to rebut documentary evidence of joint ownership. Consequently, additions attributable to co-owners could not be sustained against the assessee and were deleted. Appeal by the assessee was allowed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the assessing officer could add the difference between the sum admitted as unaccounted/on-money during search proceedings and the lesser amount shown in the revised return, when the purchase agreement and seizure records indicate joint/co-ownership of the property and the assessee admitted only a portion of the on-money corresponding to his share.

2. Whether the addition of undisclosed/on-money should be apportioned and taxed in the hands of co-owners according to respective shareholding, or whether it is permissible to tax the entire balance in the hands of the assessee who offered a larger share during search.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of addition of Rs. 21,26,000 by taxing the balance of on-money to the assessee despite evidence of co-ownership and the assessee's admission during search.

Legal framework: The assessment and reassessment provisions permit taxation of undisclosed income discovered during search; principles require taxing income in the right hand, right year, and right assessment (i.e., attribution to the person who actually derived or possessed the undisclosed income). Admissions made during search proceedings and seized documents are relevant material for assessment; however, the AO must attribute undisclosed money to the correct person(s).

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied the established principle that income should be taxed in the hands of the person who actually derived the income (the "right hand" principle). No conflicting precedent was overruled; the decision follows the settled approach to apportionment among co-owners where factual materials demonstrate joint ownership.

Interpretation and reasoning: The seized agreement expressly recorded the purchase in the names of three persons and described the property as co-owned/jointly owned. The assessee's recorded statement during search admitted aggregate on-money of Rs. 1,33,76,000 but he later disclosed only Rs. 1,12,50,000 in the revised return. The AO treated the shortfall (Rs. 21,26,000) as assessable income of the assessee alone. The Tribunal reasoned that where documents and the assessee's own statement establish co-ownership, the presumption is that on-money would be borne pro rata by co-purchasers according to their respective shareholdings. Absent evidence to rebut the co-ownership claim or to show that the entire unpaid portion was exclusively the assessee's liability, it was impermissible to attribute the entire difference solely to the assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had in fact offered to tax Rs. 1,12,50,000 (which exceeded his declared 40% share), strengthening the conclusion that taxing the remaining Rs. 21,26,000 against him was unwarranted.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where seized documents and admissions indicate joint ownership of purchased property, the assessing authority must apportion undisclosed/on-money among co-owners according to their respective shares and cannot unilaterally attribute the unpaid balance to one co-owner without contrary evidence. Obiter - The statement that the assessee offered more than his pro-rata share (80% vs. admitted 40%) is factual context supporting the ratio but not a separate legal rule.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 21,26,000 to the assessee's income was unjustified and is directed to be deleted; any addition, if warranted, ought to have been made pro rata in the hands of the co-owners in accordance with their respective interests in the property.

Issue 2: Proper attribution and taxation of undisclosed/on-money where an assessee's admitted amount in search differs from the revised return.

Legal framework: Admissions made during search and seizure are relevant and can constitute basis for assessment; however, the fundamental tax principle requires that income be taxed in the hands of the person who is the real recipient or owner of such income. When multiple persons are shown as purchasers in seized documentation, the AO must determine each person's liability on the basis of shareholding/interests, and cannot automatically treat the assessees' search-time admission as admission of sole liability for the entire undisclosed amount unless corroborative evidence exists.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied the established evidentiary and attribution principles without distinguishing or overruling precedent; the treatment aligns with established jurisprudence that undisclosed income is to be assessed against those who in fact received or were liable for it.

Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee's recorded statement during search offered a sum (Rs. 1,33,76,000) for taxation as unaccounted money but expressly stated the purchase was by three parties. The revised return showed a lower admission (Rs. 1,12,50,000). The AO added the difference to the assessee's income on the view that the assessee had earlier offered the full amount. The Tribunal held that the proper course was to rely on the agreement and the stated apportionment of ownership; the presumption of pro rata contribution among co-owners should govern taxation unless the AO adduces evidence to show a different actual contribution pattern. The AO failed to rebut the co-ownership assertion or demonstrate that the unpaid balance was exclusively attributable to the assessee.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an assessee's admissions during search indicate joint purchase and co-ownership, and where no evidence exists to rebut the co-ownership apportionment, the assessing authority must allocate undisclosed/on-money in accordance with respective shares and cannot assess the unpaid balance solely on one co-owner. Obiter - The Tribunal's observation that income must be taxed in the "right hand, right year, and right income" reiterates settled tax principles and serves as guiding dicta.

Conclusion: The AO's reliance on the search admission to tax the unpaid difference solely to the assessee was erroneous; proper attribution requires pro rata taxation among co-owners, and therefore the addition of Rs. 21,26,000 is deleted.

Cross-reference

The conclusions on both issues are interlinked: the factual finding of co-ownership (from the seized agreement and the assessee's own statement) is determinative of the legal requirement to apportion undisclosed/on-money; because the AO did not rebut that factual foundation, the addition of the unpaid balance to the assessee alone was not sustainable.

---