Abhinav Chawla, Bhilai V. Income tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Bhilai

ITA 86/RPR/2020

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Abhinav Chawla against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-II, Raipur, which confirmed an addition made by the A.O under Sections 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding unexplained investment in immovable property for the assessment year 2013-14. The A.O had treated the entire investment as unexplained due to non-compliance with a notice under Section 148. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the A.O's decision, except for a minor portion. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, found that most of the investment was substantiated through the assessee's wife's savings, except for a small amount related to registration and other charges, which remained unexplained.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128079 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायप ु र मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPURBENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी रवीश स ू द, ÛयाǓयक सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.86/RPR/2020 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Abhinav Chawla C/o. Kusum Pande, HIG-I/2204, M.P Housing Board, Industrial Estate, Bhilai (C.G.) PAN : AIQPC6950M .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1(4) Bhilai (C.G.). ......Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 22.08.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 2 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No.86/RPR/2020 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-II, Raipur, dated 07.07.2020, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 12.12.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,10,460/-, out of total addition of Rs.42,67,000/- made by the A.O on account of alleged unexplained investment in immovable property u/s.69. The addition made by the A.O and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. 2. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the impugned property was purchased jointly by the appellant and his wife Smt. Kritika Chawla and he erred in confirming part of the addition made by the A.O entirely in the hands of the appellant. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any ground or ground/s of appeal.” 2. Succinctly stated, on the basis of information received by the A.O that though the assessee during the year under consideration had purchased an immovable property valued at Rs.42.67 lacs but had not filed his return of income, proceedings u/s.147 of the Act were initiated in his case. 3 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No.86/RPR/2020 3. As the assessee had failed to file his return of income in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2018, therefore, the A.O was constrained to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment, wherein after treating the entire investment as the assessee’s unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act, he vide his order passed u/ss. 144/147 of the Act, dated 12.12.2018, . 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Adverting to the merits of the addition so made in the hands of the assessee, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the assessee had a made total investment of Rs.45,12,860/-, which comprised of, viz. (i) cost of residential house: Rs.42.67 lacs; (ii) stamp duty : Rs.2,13,400/- and (iii) other miscellaneous expenses : Rs.32,460/-. On a perusal of the source of the aforementioned investment, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the same was made both by the assessee and his wife Smt. Kritika Chawla, as under: Sl. No. Particular Amount 1. Out of loan raised by the assessee from HDFC Bank Rs.3202400/- 2. Out of savings of his wife Smt. Kritika Chawla Rs.1310460/- Total Rs.4512860/- 4 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No.86/RPR/2020 Although the CIT(Appeals) concurred with the claim of the assessee of having made an investment of Rs.32,02,400/- from his disclosed sources, but he was of the view that the investment to the extent claimed to have been made by his wife had remained unexplained. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee had failed to place on record any material to support his claim that investment of Rs.13,10,460/- (supra) was sourced out of the savings of his wife. On the contrary, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that not only Smt. Kritika Chawla (supra) was having any substantial financial means to justify the aforesaid investment, but in fact the source of the credit (including opening balance) in her bank account had remained unexplained. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations the CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition of Rs.13,10,460/- (supra) that was made by the A.O. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. 6. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial 5 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No.86/RPR/2020 pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee had drawn my attention to a ‘chart’ wherein the bifurcated details of the investment of Rs.45,12,860/- towards purchase of the residential property in question were culled out, as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Date of payment Source of payment Amount (Rs.) From Account No. Remarks Details of cost Sources of finance Purchase price 42,67,000 20-11- 2012 Savings of Kritika Chawla 4,26,700 11021140004882 with HDFC Bank Ch No.0063083 Stamp duty 2,13,400 28-12- 2012 Savings of Kritika Chawla 6,90,000 11021140004882 with HDFC Bank Ch No.0063085 Registration & Other Misc Charges 32,460 08-01- 2013 Savings of Kritika Chawla 5,000 11021140004882 with HDFC Bank Ch No.0110404 08-01- 2013 Savings of Kritika Chawla 42,670 11021140004882 with HDFC Bank Ch No.0110403 08-01- 2013 Savings of Kritika Chawla 1,31,850 11021140004882 with HDFC Bank Ch No.0110402 16-01- 2013 Savings of Abhinav Chawla 14,240 Cash paid for registration & other charges Total own contribution 13,10,460 30-01- 2013 Home loan from HDFC Ltd. 29,79,620 606876059 with HDFC Ltd. 1 st disbursement 19-06- 2013 Home loan from HDFC Ltd. 85,340 606876059 with HDFC Ltd. 2 nd disbursement 6 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No.86/RPR/2020 08-05- 2014 Home loan from HDFC Ltd. 1,37,440 606876059 with HDFC Ltd. 3 rd disbursement Total of Home loan 32,02,400 Total 45,12,860 45,12,860 Adverting to the source of investment of Rs.13,10,460/- (supra) that was claimed to have been made by Smt. Kritika Chawla (supra), the Ld. AR had taken us through a chart placed at Page 37 of APB, which reads as under: On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was claimed by the Ld. AR that now when the investment of Rs.13,10,460/- (supra) was clearly made by the assessee’s wife out of her savings bank account, therefore, there was no justification for the lower authorities to have dubbed the same as unexplained investment in the hands of her husband i.e the assessee before us. 7 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No.86/RPR/2020 8. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid claim of the Ld. AR, and perusing the material available on record, I find substance in the same. As stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, source of the investment aggregating to an amount of Rs.12,96,220/- [ Rs.13,10,460/- (-) Rs.14,240/-] is clearly made by assessee’s wife, viz. Smt. Kritika Chawla out of her savings bank account No.11021140004882 with HDFC Bank, Page 35 of APB. Now when the source of the aforesaid investment of Rs.13,10,460/- (supra) is clearly proved to the hilt to have been made by Smt. Kritika Chawla (supra), therefore, I find no justification in drawing any adverse inferences qua the said amount of investment in the hands of the present assessee. Although the assessee had came forth with an explanation as regards the source of the credits appearing in the bank account of his wife, viz. Smt. Kritika Chawla (supra), however, I am of the considered view that even if any of part of such credit remained unexplained, no adverse inferences qua the said amount still could have been drawn in the hands of the assessee. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that no adverse inferences insofar the amount of Rs.12,96,220/- is called for in the hands of the present assessee. At the same time, I am of the view that as the assessee had failed to substantiate on the 8 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No.86/RPR/2020 basis of irrefutable evidence the source of the cash that was claimed to have been paid for registration and other charges amounting to Rs.14,240/-, therefore, the A.O had rightly held the same as unexplained investment in his hands. On the basis of the aforesaid observations I scale down the addition made by the A.O to an amount of Rs.14,240/-. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 18 th day of November, 2022. Sd/- (रवीश स ू द/RAVISH SOOD) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायप ु र / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 18 th November, 2022 ***SB आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-II, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT-II, Raipur (C.G.) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायप ु र / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशान ु सार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Ǔनजी सͬचव /Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,रायप ु र/ ITAT, Raipur