Facts
Appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax in the matter of an assessment framed by AO u/s 143(3). r.w.s. 153C of the Act. In the original grounds of appeal, the assessee has assailed quantum addition of Rs.200 Lacs as confirmed by CIT(A). The assessee is also aggrieved by the fact that agricultural income of Rs.10 Lacs belonging to HUF entity has been considered in the hands of the assessee. The assessee has filed additional grounds of appeal wherein the assessee has submitted that in the absence of any incriminating material, the addition of Rs.10 Lacs on account of agricultural income and disallowance u/s 37(1) for Rs.8.16 Lacs is without jurisdiction.
Decision
The division of Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member noted that during search operation on assessee, certain material was found and seized. The material include a sale agreement which, inter-alia, contain the details of advance paid by the assessee to the tune of Rs.200 Lacs for purchase of certain property situated at Survey no. 15/94, VGP Golden Beach.
It was further noted that there is no concrete evidence on record to suggest that the assessee paid an alleged sum of Rs.200 Lacs at agreement stage itself. It is also inconceivable that the assessee would part with approx. 48% of sale consideration at agreement stage itself when the sale transaction was to be completed within 6 months from the date of the agreement.
The Tribunal said that it is admitted fact by the assessee that it has paid only sum of Rs.5 Lacs to the sellers and therefore, the investment, to that extent, could be considered as undisclosed investment by the assessee.
The bench found that the assessee had been searched. It is undisputed fact that on the date of search, no assessment proceedings were pending against the assessee for the year under consideration. Therefore, this is a year of unabated assessment.
The bench held that there is nothing on record which would show that any incriminating material was found during search operation which would show that the agricultural income belonged to the assessee instead of HUF. Therefore, the agricultural income is not to be considered in the hands of the assessee.
Case title: Shri Duraisamy Parameswaran v/s ACIT
Citation: ITA No.1025/Chny/2022
