TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot in dispute. As per Jantri rate of the Revenue Survey No. 47, Block No. 87, final plot No. 82 B Bamroli is Rs. 4200/- per square meter so total value of land as per Jantri Value is Rs. 2,98,24,800/-. The assessee has shown consideration of such transaction at Rs. 3.05 Crore, which is much more than the value of Stamp Valuation authority. Thus, the assessing officer made addition of difference of Rs. 3,38,486/- without verifying the factual position. Thus, direct the assessing officer to delete such addition made under section 56(2)(vii). In the result, ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed. Unexplained investment - assessee made investment for purchasing of property which is not declared in the return of income nor offered for taxation - assessee submits that the investment made in the land is duly reflected in the balance sheet and payment was made from ICICI bank account which was duly shown in the return of income - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) confirmed the addition without verifying the facts. Before me, the assessee made similar submissions as raised before ld CIT(A). On perusal of verification balance sheet of the assessee I find that land is reflected in his balance sheet and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reciate the certified copy issued by Sub Reg. Office and the assessment orders accepting the document value in other joint owners case. Thus, additions made without considering documents and evidences adduced need to be deleted. 4. On the basis of facts of the case and in law, the addition made u/s 69 by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) for unexplained investment is bad in law and without any materials or evidences on records. The A.O. grossly failed to allow opportunity to the appellant for explaining investments made in property and CIT(A) also erred by not considering documents and evidences adduced during appellant hearing and confirmed the additions of Rs. 12,33,150/-. Thus, addition of Rs. 12,33,150/- needs to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reasons supplied for reopening the case by the A.O. did not include any reason for unexplained investments made in property nor any evidences or documents were supplied by the A.O. to form a belief that income has escaped, in spite of specific request made by the appellant. The A.O. arbitrarily made the additions and the CIT(A) also erred in concurring this additions. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice was issued to the assessee vide notice dated 26/09/2018, the assessee was asked to furnish his explanation on or before 27/09/2018. The Assessing Officer further noted that no compliance of such notice was made. The Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment on the basis of material available on record. 3. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee with other co-owners purchased a land in RS No.47, Block No. 86, Bamroli, vide registered sale deed dated 18/09/2013 for a consideration of Rs. 3.05 crores, wherein the share of assessee is 4.038% thus, the share of investment of assessee is Rs. 12,33,150/-. As per stamp duty valuation, the market value of property is Rs. 3.86 crores. Accordingly, the share of assessee in the investment as per market value of immovable property is Rs. 15,61,636/-, thus, there is difference of Rs. 3,28,846/- as per the value determined by the stamp duty authority vis-a-vis the consideration declared in the sale deed, which is treated as income from other sources as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. As recorded above, the Assessing Officer worked out the share of assessee at Rs. 12,33,150/- from total inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee alongwith other co-owners purchased property as R.S. No. 47, Block No. 86 at Rs. 3.05 crores, the assessee was having share of 4.03%, and paid his share of Rs. 12,33,251/-. No additional stamp duty was demanded by Sub-Registrar Office and the document was accepted as it is. 5. The assessee further submitted that they made enquiry and sought clarification from Sub-registrar office concerned about the correct value of said property. Sub-registrar office issued calculation sheet for valuation of property i.e. agricultural land in Survey No. 47, Block No. 86 final plot No. 82A-82B, Bamroli, Surat dated 07/12/2016. In certified calculation sheet, the correct Jantri value worked out by Sub-Registrar office is at Rs. 2.98 crores. The document was registered by showing consideration at Rs. 3.05 crores. Certified copy of valuation sheet was also furnished. The assessee further submitted that rate of Jantri value is available on the State Government e-portal for general public information. As per official record of State Government portal, the jantri value of property is Rs. 4200/- per square meter. The total area of transaction for the impugned land in R.S. No. 47, Block No. 86 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is report dated 11/10/2021 on NFAC portal. The Assessing Officer in his report, objected about admitting the submission of assessee on the ground that the assessee does not fulfil the condition prescribed under Rule 46A, therefore, such additional evidences may not be admitted. However, on merit of the addition, the Assessing Officer reported that the assessee alongwith other 14 co-owners, sold immovable property situated at R.S. No. 47, Block No. 86, final plot No. 82A-82B, Bamroli, Surat . The Assessing Officer further reported that on a consideration of Rs. 3.05 crores, the assessee and his co-owners paid stamp duty of Rs. 18,95,000/- and reiterated the contents of assessment order. 8. On the remand report, the assessee filed his rejoinder dated 20/12/2021. The contents of rejoinder are recorded in para 5.1 of the order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee reported that no additional stamp duty was paid. Stamp duty was actual payable at Rs. 14,96,391/- and actual duty was paid at Rs. 18,95,000/-, thus, they have paid excessive stamp duty. The assessee further explained that the documents were released immediately by stamp valuation authority/sub-registrar office. In case of under val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its income necessary for investment and upheld the validity of reopening. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 12. I have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The grounds No. 1 and 2 of the assessee are general in nature and needs no specific adjudication, therefore, dismissed as such. 13. Ground No. 3 of the appeal relates to addition of Rs. 3,38,486/- under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made this addition by taking a view that the Jantri value of property was at Rs. 3.86 crores against the valuation shown in the documents at Rs. 3.05 crores. No basis of such working or on arriving such figure is provided by the Assessing Officer. The assessee alongwith his co-owners, purchased a property at Rs. 3.05 crores, the area of the property was 7102 square meter, the jantri value of survey number was Rs. 4200/- per square meter, thus total value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatements were produced before the ld. CIT(A) in his submission. Source of land purchased were also explained by supporting evidence. The assessee has availed unsecured loan from his uncle Ashish R Patel and mother Smt. Darshna Sanjay Patel. Their confirmation, copy of their income tax return were furnished before the ld. CIT(A) and were available before the Assessing Officer at the time of remand report, they have not doubted such loan transactions. The Assessing Officer has not mentioned as to why investment of Rs. 12,33,150/- required to be verified or he possessed any material to form an opinion about the escapement of income. No documents or evidences in the power and possession of Assessing Officer was provided to the assessee. The invocation of application of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) is void ab initio as the Assessing Officer wrongly calculated the value of transaction without verifying the transaction. 15. Ground No. 5 relates to the validity of reopening, the ld. AR of the assessee repeated the similar contention in his submission as submitted before the ld. CIT(A), which we have recorded above. To support his various submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 3.86 Crore, the assessing officer worked out the share of assessee in the investment at Rs. 15,61,636/-, and a difference of Rs. 3,28,846/- as per the value determined by the stamp duty authority vis-a-vis the consideration declared in the sale deed. The assessing officer made addition of such difference under section 56(2)(vii) by taking view that despite show cause no response or reply was furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer worked out the share of assessee at Rs. 12,33,150/- from total investment by all co-owners and treated it as unexplained investment and added to the income of assessee. No basis of such working or on arriving such figure is recorded in the assessment order nor copy of such working was provided to the assessee. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the action of assessing officer on both the additions. 19. I find that before ld CIT(A) the assesse filed very exhaustive submissions, which is recorded above. I find that the assessee before ld CIT(A) specifically submitted that they made enquiry and sought clarification from Sub-registrar office concerned about the correct value of said property. Sub-registrar office issued calculation sheet for valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, copy of land purchase account and bank statement was furnished. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition without verifying the facts. Before me, the assessee made similar submissions as raised before ld CIT(A). On perusal of verification balance sheet of the assessee I find that land is reflected in his balance sheet and the payments were made from bank account which is duly shown in the return of income, copy of Profit and Loss account, balance sheet, capital account, copy of land purchase account and bank statement is already filed on record. Thus, I do not find any justification in confirming the addition by ld CIT(A). thus assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 12,33,150/-. 22. I also find merit in the other submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that the case of his co-owners were also reopened under section 147 by recording similar reasons about the investment and difference in consideration shown of the registered sale deed and the value allegedly determined by the stamp valuation authority. However, in cases of two of his co-owners, the charges were dropped and no addition either under section 56(2)(vii) or unexplained inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
