Rajsheel Jitendra Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Loose Excel Sheet With Wrong Seller Name Can’t Justify On-Money Addition; Joint Ownership Proven Through Society Records – Sec. 69 & Sec. 56 Additions Deleted
In this appeal filed by Rajsheel Jitendra Patel against the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) pursuant to DRP directions, ITAT Ahmedabad examined two major additions: first, an alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 48,89,877/- said to be on-money in a Sky City Floris flat & second, Rs. 1,56,00,000/- treated as unexplained receipts arising from sale of a jointly held property with consequential denial of exemption u/s 54 & 54EC.
The entire on-money allegation was based solely on an excel sheet recovered from the device of one Manish Brahmbhatt, stated to be a broker. Assessee consistently submitted that he never appointed any such broker & no brokerage was ever paid. More importantly, the excel sheet itself mentioned the seller as “Desai Kaka”, whereas the registered sale deed clearly shows the seller as Safal Goyal Realty LLP. This mismatch, along with absence of signature, absence of corroboration, non-furnishing of statements & denial of cross-examination, made the seized sheet wholly unreliable. Following the binding Gujarat High Court ruling in Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia & the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Kiritkumar Champaklal Shah, Tribunal held that a third-party excel sheet without independent corroboration has no evidentiary value. Therefore, addition u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE stood deleted.
On the second addition, Tribunal observed that the assessee had placed complete documentary evidences demonstrating joint ownership of the Shyamal Row House property with his wife. The society share certificate, resolutions, Index-2 entry, & the registered sale deed all acknowledged assessee as joint holder since 1995. The buyer had also made independent payments of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- to each joint holder with corresponding TDS u/s 194-IA. Hence, the AO’s conclusion that ownership was unverified was contrary to record. Further, treating a registered sale consideration as “unexplained receipt” u/s 56 was held impermissible when the nature of receipt clearly fell under capital gains. The assessee had also furnished the purchase deed of new residential house & investment proof of 54EC bonds within prescribed timelines. Therefore, denial of exemptions u/s 54 & 54EC was found unjustified.
ITAT held that the AO had not invoked any specific charging limb of section 56, nor was there any material to suggest the receipt was unexplained. Since all primary documents established joint ownership, receipt of consideration, & valid investment of capital gains, the addition of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- could not survive.
The appeal was accordingly allowed in full, with both additions deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
