2021 (11) TMI 566 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investment - HELD THAT - Assessee has carried out the construction in two years namely in the years relevant to assessment year 2006-07 2007-08. Assessee has spent aggregate amount of Rs. 14.10 lakhs in two years namely Rs. 10.25 lakhs in assessment year 2006-07 Rs. 3.85 lakhs in assessment year 2007-08. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the claim of salary savings to the extent of Rs. 10.25 lakhs in assessment year 2006-07. Hence what is required to be explained during the year under consideration is the balance amount of Rs. 3.85 lakhs (Rs. 14.10 lakhs (minus) Rs. 10.25 lakhs). It is also an undisputed fact that the assessee has declared salary income of around Rs. 20 lakhs during the year under consideration. Accordingly we are of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the claim of the assessee that the above said sum of Rs. 3.85 lakhs was spent out of salary savings. In view of the foregoing discussions we are of the view that the claim of own funds of Rs. 14.10 lakhs deserves to be accepted. Accordingly we modify the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 14.10 lakhs.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to addition made under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for unexplained investment.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning an unexplained investment of Rs. 14.10 lakhs. The A.O. observed that the appellant, an employee of a company, had constructed a residential property. The valuation report indicated a property value of Rs. 68.10 lakhs, with a loan of Rs. 30 lakhs availed by the appellant. The A.O. raised concerns regarding the unexplained balance of Rs. 38.10 lakhs and treated it as unexplained investment.

Before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)), the appellant explained the property valuation, detailing the land cost and construction expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 14.10 lakhs, citing lack of proof for the source of salary savings. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the balance amount of Rs. 14.10 lakhs was covered by salary savings.

The appellant's representative highlighted that the A.O. had previously made additions for the same property in the assessment year 2006-07, which were later deleted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) accepted the appellant's claim of using own funds for construction, leading to the deletion of earlier additions.

The appellate tribunal acknowledged the appellant's investment of Rs. 14.10 lakhs from salary savings over two assessment years. Considering the appellant's declared salary income and previous CIT(A) decisions, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 14.10 lakhs. The tribunal found the appellant's explanation satisfactory and allowed the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision favored the appellant, emphasizing the consistent use of own funds for property construction and salary savings. The tribunal's analysis highlighted the importance of substantiating sources of funds and previous CIT(A) rulings in determining the legitimacy of investments.