Addition of undisclosed investment u/s 69 cannot be made purely on possibility of higher payment on the basis of comparables of higher market value.

Last updated: 22 January 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that an addition of undisclosed investment under section 69 cannot be made solely based on the possibility of a higher payment suggested by comparable properties with higher market values. This decision clarifies that mere speculation or potential for higher gains is insufficient grounds for such tax assessments. The ruling addresses several appeals related to undisclosed income, capital gains, and loans.

Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
These are appeals by the various assessees belonging to the same group and one appeal by the revenue against respective orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] for the concerned assessment years.

Citation :
I.T.A. No. 6519/Mum/2019

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“H” Bench, Mumbai
Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM)

I.T.A. No. 6519/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)
I.T.A. No. 6520/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14)
I.T.A. No. 6521/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15)

Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia
1102/1103, Express Zone
A Wing, Patel Vatika
Of f Western Express
Highway, Malad-East
Mumbai-400 097.
PAN : ASRPR4293B
(Appellant)

Vs.

DCIT, CC-2(2)
Old CGO Bui lding
Annexe, 8th Floor
M.K. Road
Mumbai-400 020.
(Respondent)

I.T.A. No. 6960/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15)

Sneha Rajesh Ruia
2202 A, Lakshchandi
Heights, Gokuldham
Krishna Vatika Marg
Goregaon East
Mumbai-400 063.
PAN : BFXPR4211M
(Appellant)

Vs.

DCIT, CC-2(2)
Old CGO Bui lding
Annexe, 8th Floor
Pratishtha Bhavan
M.K. Road
Mumbai-400 020.
(Respondent)

I.T.A. No. 6957/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15)

Late Rajesh Ruia
2202 A, Lakshchandi
Heights, Gokuldham
Krishna Vatika Marg
Goregaon East
Mumbai-400 063.
PAN : AAIPR5763P
(Appellant)

Vs.

DCIT, CC-2(2)
Old CGO Bui lding
Annexe, 8th Floor
Pratishtha Bhavan
M.K. Road
Mumbai-400 020.
(Respondent)

O R D E R

Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

These are appeals by the various assessees belonging to the same group and one appeal by the revenue against respective orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] for the concerned assessment years.

2. There are four issues arising in assessees appeals. They relate tochallenge to the validity of assessment under section 153A, addition u/s 68 of long term capital gains as undisclosed income by treating the same as bogus,addition of commission on capital gain, addition under section 68 of loans,addition of interest on loans. The grounds raised by the assessee are similarlyworded except for the amounts. For the sake of reference we are reproducing hereunder the grounds of appeal raised in the case of Kalpana Mukesh Ruia for assessment year 2013-14 where all the grounds raised are referred and emanating.

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

Tax authorities cannot add undisclosed investments under section 69 purely on the possibility of a higher payment suggested by comparable properties with higher market values. There must be more concrete evidence.

Section 69 of the Income Tax Act is relevant to the addition of undisclosed investments.

The appeals also covered the validity of assessment under section 153A, additions for long-term capital gains treated as bogus income, commission on capital gains, and additions related to loans and interest on loans.

The ruling was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) and Shri Ramlal Negi (JM).