ITO Vs Roopsingh Bhupal Singh (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Addition u/s 69 on Alleged Property Investment Deleted – Difference Between Agreement & Sale Deed Not Sufficient Evidence – ITAT Ahmedabad
AO reopened the assessment after noticing that the assessee had entered into an initial sale agreement for purchase of agricultural land at ₹5.22 crore, whereas the final registered sale deed reflected consideration of only ₹25.25 lakh. Treating the difference as unexplained investment, AO added ₹2.48 crore (assessee’s 50% share) u/s 69, mainly due to non-compliance during assessment proceedings.
Before CIT(A), the assessee furnished additional evidences including cancellation agreement showing that the earlier high-value agreement was terminated due to disputes with sellers and the property was ultimately registered as agricultural land at a reduced price. AO, in remand report, accepted that documentary evidence supported cancellation and that the assessee had explained the transactions and bank entries. CIT(A) deleted the addition noting absence of any proof of extra payment beyond sale deed value.
ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s order, observing that mere variation between an earlier agreement and final sale deed cannot lead to addition without evidence of actual consideration paid. Since no material showed that the assessee paid any amount over and above the registered value, the addition u/s 69 was unsustainable and Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
