Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1397 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69A - difference of valuation of the stamp duty versus actual consideration - money found credited in the assessee s bank account unexplained - HELD THAT - The assessee has demonstrated by bank statement that the entire amount came from the properties sold to the purchaser. Moreover valuation of the stamp duty versus actual consideration the difference arose solely because of the purchaser chosen to register a deed at the circle rate and stamp duty value was determined by the said authority for which the seller cannot compel the purchaser to reflect negotiated price. Since the assessee was transparent in receipts therefore the Assessing Officer has not disputed that the monies were reached through normal banking channel and once the assessee has proved the identity of the buyer genuineness of the transaction and source of fund the initial burden stands discharged. The revenue has not brought any record showing the consideration exceeded Rs. 34, 00, 000/- for that have been originated from a unaccounted sources. Addition made by the AO and sustained by the DRP u/s 69A of the Act is unsustainable and the AO is directed to delete the addition. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT Cochin) allowed the assessee's appeal against the addition of Rs. 18,41,000/- made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer had added this amount due to a discrepancy between the actual sale consideration (Rs. 34,00,000/-) and the registered sale deed value (Rs. 15,59,000/-) for two agricultural properties. The Tribunal held that under section 69, the onus lies on the assessee to explain the nature and source of credited money. The assessee discharged this burden by demonstrating through bank statements that the full amount was received via transparent banking channels and that the lower registered value resulted from the purchaser's choice to register at the circle rate for stamp duty purposes, a practice beyond the assessee's control. Since the revenue failed to prove the funds originated from unaccounted sources, the addition was "unsustainable." The Tribunal directed deletion of the addition, stating the assessee had proved "the identity of the buyer, genuineness of the transaction and source of fund," thereby satisfying the requirements of section 69. The appeal was allowed.
|