Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Rewa V. Anantpur Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Rewa

ITA 102/JAB/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2756 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHIJEET SHRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (Through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 102/JAB/2018 (Asst. Year: 2013-14) Appellant by : Smt. Neeraja Pradhan, CIT-DR Respondent by : Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate Date of hearing : 17/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 27/06/2022 O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’, for short) dated 07/02/2018, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting it’s assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30/12/2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The appeal raises a single issue, i.e., deletion of the addition for Rs. 480.66 lacs made u/s. 69/69B of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment, by the ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order. ITO, Ward-1, Rewa. vs. Anantpur Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Rewa (MP). [PAN : AABTA 8743 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 102/JAB/2018 (AY: 2013-14) ITO vs. Anantpur Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit 2 | P a g e 3. The assessee, a registered society since 19/11/1981, is in the business of acquisition of land for plotting and subsequent sale. On the basis of information gathered by the AO, the assessee had during the relevant year purchased four pieces of land for Rs. 747.35 lacs, as under: S.No. Date Amount (Rs.) 1. 18/04/2012 3,47,90,000 2. 18/04/2012 2,92,53,000 3. 19/07/2012 60,37,000 4. 07/11/2012 46,55,000 Total 7,47,35,000 The additions as per the tax audit report were at Rs. 266.69 lacs, which amount only was found by the AO as paid to the sellers of the land on an examination of the assessee’s accounts, which were called for to verify the same with reference to the documents of the said purchases. There was, thus, a difference of Rs.4,80,65,934 (i.e., Rs. 7,47,35,000 – 2,66,69,066). In fact, the land purchase account reflected a figure of Rs. 1129.88 lacs, while the said figure as per the tax audit report was at Rs. 865.79 lacs. In view of these discrepancies, the AO assessed Rs. 480.66 lacs as unexplained investment u/s. 69. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) examined the relevant records with reference to the assessee’s accounts, and deleted the same holding as under:- ‘7.2.5 I have verified the facts from the books of accounts produced and verified the payments from Bank statements. The year-wise copies of ledgers along with cash & bank book and audited accounts duly narrated date wise payments purchase of land have also been examined. It is noticed that the society has purchased land through account payee cheques shown in the registries and bank accounts. The properties acquired from the same persons in three different year and payment made through cheques. The same has been shown in the respective years’ balance sheet in which the property got transferred through registration. The advance paid in excess of registered sale deed has been shown as advance in the balance sheet.’ Aggrieved, the revenue is in second appeal. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. ITA No. 102/JAB/2018 (AY: 2013-14) ITO vs. Anantpur Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit 3 | P a g e 4.1 Our first observation in the matter is that there has been no admission of additional evidence by the first appellate authority, as the Revenue alleges per it’s Ground 2, with Gd. 1 reiterating the AO’s stand. As a reading of the assessment order itself shows, all the land purchase deeds as well as the accounts were before the AO, only with reference to which, regarding the variation between the sale (purchase) deeds and the accounts as not reconciled, he deemed the investment to that extent as unexplained. As explained by Shri Srivastava, the ld. counsel for the assessee, the entire record was produced before the AO, and the confusion has arisen because the purchase of land, which was from farmers, was completed over a period of 3 years (beginning with the year immediately preceding the relevant previous year), resulting in a mismatch when the sale deeds were sought to be compared with the entries in the accounts for the relevant year only. We further observe that the land cost as per the assessee’s accounts to be rather on a higher side, which does not agree with the AO’s finding of unexplained investment. The ld. CIT(A) has toward this end considered the entire purchase, which also addresses the differences by observed the AO with reference to the audit report, as well as the aspect of payment to the creditors, summarizing the transactions, as under: LAND PURCHASE ACCOUNT Date Amount (Rs.) 11/11/2011 15435000 14/06/2012 29253000 19/07/2012 6027000 30/11/2012 4655000 15/06/2012 34790000 Development charges paid to farmers 449000 Total 90609000 Year wise payment details and ledger accounts are enclosed as under: (Amount is Rs.) 2011-12 60600000 2012-13 26409000 2013-14 3600000 Total 90609000 ITA No. 102/JAB/2018 (AY: 2013-14) ITO vs. Anantpur Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit 4 | P a g e 4.2 Further, the sale deeds being a part of the record, each of which stands reflected in the assessee’s accounts, the ld. CIT-DR was required by the Bench to show as to which entries are stated by the AO to have not been paid by the assessee till the date of registration, inasmuch as each of the four sale deeds (at PB-2, pgs. 1-46) clearly mentions of the entire sale consideration having been paid by that date, or otherwise any discrepancy observed by the AO that remains to be satisfactorily resolved, to no answer, even as the matter was kept part-heard twice 4.3 Further still, inasmuch as the land purchase details per the impugned order did not agree with that by the AO, the Bench made it a point to, during hearing, reconcile the two apparently different set of transactions, with a view to the confirm that the same are qua the same transactions, to find them as indeed so. The ‘difference’ in the dates between the two tables, i.e., by the AO and the ld. CIT(A), as we find, is on account of the fact that while the tabulation by the AO is as per the date of the presentation of the sale agreement for registration, that by the latter records the date of registration. There is as such no difference between the two. 4.4 In view of the foregoing, we find no reason for interference with the impugned order and, accordingly, decline to. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on June 27, 2022 sd/- sd/- (Sanjay Arora) (Manomohan Das) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 27/06/2022 vr/- ITA No. 102/JAB/2018 (AY: 2013-14) ITO vs. Anantpur Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit 5 | P a g e Copy to: 1. The Appellant: ITO, Ward-1, Rewa. 2. The Respondent: Anantpur Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Rewa (MP) 3. The Principal CI T-2, Jabalpur. 4. The CI T( A)-1, Jabalpur. 5. The CI T-D.R., I TAT, Jabalpur. 6. Guard file. By order (VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Jabalpur.