The Tax PublishersITA No 1638/Ahd/2017
2022 TaxPub(DT) 6952 (Ahd-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT,1961
Section-69
Where no finding of fact was arrived at as to if assessee was co owner of the investments made and also no bank statements of other co-owners was available, however, AO made addition to the assessee's income on grounds of unexplained investment, matter was remanded back to AO for fresh adjudication.
|
Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 69 - Chargeability - Assessee was reflected as co-owner
AO while verifying records of the assessee found the assessee to be co-owner of property and had not disclosed his sources of investments made. So AO asked assessee to explain the transaction,submit the details and documentary evidences to verify the genuineness of the transactions. However, assessee could not furnish any details, and documentary evidences. Hence, AO treated the entire transaction as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. Before CIT(A) assessee explained that out of whole investment, only in 3 properties he was involved and for rest of the properties he was just a confirming party. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground that in spite of several opportunities offered to assessee to explain its investments,assessee had not given proper explanation. Aggrieved, assessee appealed before Tribunal, wherein he submitted a chart/table showing the structure of payment made for the investment and contended that so far as the payment by other co owners/buyers is concerned, he had no statements of their bank account and requested Tribunal to remand the matter back to AO to make necessary inquiries with the respective buyers to verify the remaining payments. Held: From the above facts, it is however, not very clear as to whether the assessee was a confirming party in respect of 14 properties referred to the AO and also what was the precise investment in the aforesaid properties made by the assessee and consequently the amount that may be taxed in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above facts, in the interest of justice, matter was restored back to AO in order to ascertain from the facts whether the assessee is only a confirming party in respect of the aforesaid transaction of investment in 14 properties or whether he is an owner of such properties, and whether the precise investment was made by the assessee in the aforesaid properties and also to verify whether the source of such investment has been duly explained by the assessee.
ITO v. Departmental Representative. Vandana (2016) 180 TTJ 505 (Mum) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3809 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In favour of the assessee
A.Y. : 2012-13
IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|