Nibedita Deb Barma Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Assessee filed return declaring income of ₹15,48,730/-. Case was selected for scrutiny on issue of disclosure of investment in property. AO held that Assessee purchased property during FY 2015-16. Since she failed to furnish satisfactory explanation, AO made two additions – (i) ₹8,14,164/- being difference between consideration & stamp duty valuation, invoking s.56(2)(vii)(b), & (ii) ₹11,20,984/- as unexplained investment u/s 69. Total income was assessed at ₹34,83,880/-.
CIT(A) partly allowed appeal by-
- Reducing addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) to ₹1,23,156/- being actual difference between consideration & stamp duty valuation.
- Sustaining addition u/s 69 at ₹5,03,490/- for payments made in FY 2015-16, while holding that balance ₹6,17,494/- paid in FY 2011-12 could not be taxed in this year.
Tribunal noted that Assessee filed her salary account bank statement & paper book showing payment for purchase & registration of property through banking channel. Entries clearly evidenced payment of ₹5,03,490/- for property & ₹2,25,244/- for registration charges. Thus, source of investment stood duly explained from salary account. Tribunal held that when explanation is supported by bank records, additions u/s 69 & u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot survive. Tribunal directed AO to delete both additions of ₹5,03,490/- & ₹1,23,156/-.
Tribunal allowed appeal of Assessee, deleting additions u/s 69 & u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) as property investment was explained through salary account transactions
