ITO 23(2)(6) Vs Paresh Mulayamchand Panday (ITAT Mumbai)
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting additions made under Sections 69 and 56(2)(x) for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee had filed a return declaring income of Rs. 10,36,854, and the case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had paid Rs. 1 crore to a developer and Rs. 25 lakh to an outgoing tenant under a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement. In the absence of satisfactory responses during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated the total payment of Rs. 1.25 crore as unexplained investment under Section 69. Further, relying on information available on the Insight Portal, the Assessing Officer treated the difference between the alleged stamp duty value of Rs. 2.585 crore and the consideration of Rs. 1.25 crore as income under Section 56(2)(x), resulting in an addition of Rs. 1.335 crore.
In appeal, the assessee furnished additional evidence, including bank statements, cash-flow statements, PPF records, and other financial documents. These were admitted under Rule 46A, and a remand report was sought from the Assessing Officer. The assessee maintained that the payments were made through banking channels and that the transaction related to tenancy rights and allotment of additional area under a redevelopment arrangement.
