Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (6) TMI 232 - Income Tax
Addition u/s 69C - Unexplained expenses/premium - assessee did not furnish the source of payment of such expenses/premium - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that that the assessee was co-owner of agricultural land having 6.67% share in the said agricultural land. The assessee before transferring the land, paid conversion charges along with other co-owners. The case of assessee throughout the proceedings was that she is not having sufficient income. The expenses incurred by the other co-owners on her behalf and that no such similar addition was made in case of other co-owners, on whose behalf similar expenses were incurred by other co-owners. We find that the assessee has placed on record the copy of two assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, in the name of Kantaben Patel and Vipul Champakbhai Patel, though by different Assessing Officers of different wards. However, the facts remained the same that no such addition was made in case of other co-owners thought similar expenses were spent on their behalf by their relative and co-owners. It is settled law that the assessee cannot be treated as indifferently in respect of expenses or treatment of capital gain.
The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi [2006 (10) TMI 123 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that during the same assessment year same quantity of wealth in possession of co-sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co-sharer with a higher rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities is sanctioned it would militate against the principle of equality of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Revenue cannot treat the assessee in different way, therefore, the addition on account of unexplained source under section 69C is deleted. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.