Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 320 - ITAT PUNEDenial of claim for exemption u/s 54B - sale consideration received on sale of agricultural land was invested in purchase of agricultural lands in the name of son and daughter-in-law - HELD THAT:- Appellant is not entitled for deduction in respect of section 54B - Following the above decisions, this Tribunal in the case of Vandana Maruti Pathare [2022 (3) TMI 775 - ITAT PUNE] held that the deduction u/s 54B cannot be allowed in case where there was no purchase of the land/property in the name of the assessee. The submissions made by Counsel that since income arisen out of the agricultural lands were assessable in the hands of the appellant by virtue of clubbing provisions, therefore, the exemption should be allowed u/s 54B, cannot be accepted for the reason that deeming provisions cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which they have been enacted. Provision under the provisions of Benami Act, such transactions are permissible as no relevance in deciding the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 54B, as it is settled position of law that the exemption provisions should the construed strictly. Thus, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by the appellant for claiming deduction u/s 54B. Deduction u/s 54F - appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of the construction of residential property except making a bald submission - HELD THAT:- Further from the submission made by the appellant, it is clear that entire money was spent on the construction subsequent to the date of filing of the return of income and the assessee had not deposited unutilized portion of the consideration in capital gain scheme as provided under the provisions of section 54F - Thus, the submissions made by the assessee are not supported by any evidence and devoid of any merits. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal no.2 filed by the assessee. Hence, ground of appeal no.2 stands dismissed. Addition of cash deposits in bank account - HELD THAT:- In the present case, on mere perusal of the assessment order, it would suggest that the appellant had failed to offer any explanation whatsoever before the AO. It was only during the course of proceedings before the CIT(A), the appellant took a plea that the cash deposits was made on past savings without leading necessary evidence on record in support of such contention. The same came to be rejected by the CIT(A). Even during the course of hearing of appeal before us, AR took a plea for the first time that the said cash deposits were made out of sale consideration received on sale of land over and above the apparent consideration mentioned in the sale deed. However, the ld. AR had not adduced any evidence in support of this submission except making ipse dixit submissions. It must be mentioned that it is settled position of law that the consideration stated in the sale deed executed and registered is conclusive, unless and otherwise there is a material on record showing consideration was paid over and above stated consideration, as held in the case of K.P. Varghese [1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd[1986 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] and also in view of the provisions of Registration Act. Thus, the explanation offered before us during the course of hearing of appeal is not tenable in the eyes of law as it is a mere bald submission without bringing any material on record in support of submission. As regards to the other contentions of the appellant that the AO without discharging the onus of proving the source from which the investments and cash deposits were made, had chosen to make addition. This submission is contrary to the well settled position of law that no burden lies on the Revenue to show the income is received from any particulars source before invoking the provisions of section 68/69 as held in the case of Roshan Di Hatti [1977 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964 (4) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT] and A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar [1958 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT]. In view of the well settled position of law, the contentions urged by the ld. AR is devoid of any merit and the ground of appeal no.3 is highly misconceived.
|