9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1547 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of unexplained money - addition made by AO by alleging the amount introduced by way of sale of property - HELD THAT - In this case the land was not purchased by 41 persons from M/s Shree Shiromani Projects Private Limited for a consideration of Rs.2, 94, 13, 031/- whereas the same was purchased by 41 persons including assessee from Smt. Sandhya Sadhukhan Sri Ranjan Sadhukhan and Smt. Ritu Sadhukhan mentioned as Shri Binod Kumar Mahipal and Ors who were allegedly the benamidars of the property in question. The alleged transaction was thoroughly examined by the competent authority under the provisions of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 and the competent authority recorded a finding that M/s Shree Shiromani Projects Private Limited was confirming the party in the said conveyance deed. Considering the facts we are of the view that the addition made by the ld. AO was totally on the wrong facts. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. ltd 2024 (7) TMI 1642 - ITAT KOLKATA - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered by the Tribunal was whether the addition of Rs. 2,39,130/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained money was justified and sustainable in law. This issue arose from the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on allegations of a sham transaction involving the purchase of land and alleged benami property transactions. The Tribunal also considered the validity of the reopening itself and the correctness of the AO's factual findings regarding the nature of the transaction and the source of the payment. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue: Validity of addition of Rs. 2,39,130/- as unexplained money and the legitimacy of reopening the assessment under section 147. Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reopening of assessment is governed by section 147 read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which requires the AO to have "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, was also relevant as the transactions under scrutiny were alleged benami transactions. The Tribunal relied heavily on a precedent decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case involving Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. Ltd., which dealt with similar facts and legal questions for the same assessment year. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO's reopening was based on information received from the Deputy Director of Income Tax regarding a transaction involving 41 purchasers, including the assessee, who allegedly purchased land from Shree Shiromani Projects Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 2,94,13,031/- against a much higher stamp duty valuation. The AO treated a cash payment of Rs. 2,39,130/- by the assessee as unexplained money and added it to the taxable income. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's factual premise was incorrect. The land was not purchased from Shree Shiromani Projects Pvt. Ltd. but from individuals named Smt. Sandhya Sadhukhan, Sri Ranjan Sadhukhan, and Smt. Ritu Sadhukhan, who were alleged benamidars. The competent authority under the Benami Property Transactions Act had thoroughly examined the transaction and recorded findings that M/s Shree Shiromani Projects Pvt. Ltd. was merely a confirming party in the conveyance deed. The Tribunal referred to the co-ordinate Bench decision which held that the AO's allegation of a sham transaction and introduction of unaccounted money was factually incorrect. The order under the Benami Act had found that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of payments, and the proceedings under the Benami Act were dropped. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had failed to apply mind to the facts and circumstances, rendering the reopening and the addition unsustainable. Key Evidence and Findings: The key evidence included the order passed under section 24(4)(a)(ii) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, which examined the transaction in detail and found the AO's allegations to be factually wrong. The assessee's return of income declared Rs. 4,93,770/-, and the cash payment of Rs. 2,39,130/- was explained satisfactorily before the competent authority. The existence of a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and ongoing civil and High Court litigation further contextualized the transaction. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles governing reopening of assessments and the requirements of the Benami Property Transactions Act to the facts. It held that the reopening was based on incorrect facts and that the AO had not applied mind to the material facts. The addition was thus not sustainable as it was premised on a flawed factual foundation. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee relied on the co-ordinate Bench decision and the order under the Benami Act to argue that the addition was baseless. The Revenue relied on the AO's order and the reopening notice. The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments more persuasive, given the detailed findings of the competent authority and the absence of any valid reason for reopening the assessment. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 2,39,130/- was not justified and the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. The order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following verbatim excerpt from the co-ordinate Bench decision it adopted: "The observation of the Assessing Officer not only in the reasons recorded but also in the assessment order that the assessee has sold the property in question by way of sham transaction and further the assessee has introduced his own money through the 41 persons and has sold its own property and thereafter itself became the Benami beneficial owner of the property, is factually wrong and false. There is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, not only the reopening of the assessment is bad in law but also the addition on merits is not sustainable in the eyes of law." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
