9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty is liable for taxation in hands of assessee HUF even though the sale agreement talks about the individual, in our view, the Revenue should equally allow the relief from such taxation where the assessee fulfills all required conditions except that the name in the purchase agreement is that of individual and not assessee HUF. It t is not in dispute that the sale consideration has been deposited in the bank account of Ram Gopal Bansal HUF and the same has been utilized for purchase of plot of land and the construction of house thereon by utilizing the funds withdrawn from the bank account of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal HUF. The said facts is clearly apparent from the statement recorded by the AO of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal during the course of assessment proceedings which has been totally ignored by the lower authorities. Thus the assessee should be eligible to claim the necessary relief u/s 54 of the Act in respect of investment in plot of land and subsequent construction of house thereon. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of excess cash deposit over the cash withdrawal in the account maintained by the assessee - Held that:- It is noted that the bank statement of both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,50,000/- against ₹ 2,18,905/- claimed by the assessee. (3) The ld. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,39,500/- on account of by treating the excess of cash deposit in the bank account over the cash withdrawals as unexplained cash credit. The addition so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. (4) The ld. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in treating the agriculture income of ₹ 2,35,320/- as income from other sources and making addition for the same. Hence the addition so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is totally contrary to the provision of law and fats n hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. (5) Further alternatively and without prejudice the above grounds of appeal it is also prayed that if addition of GOA 3 is sustained then the setoff of the agriculture income my kindly allowed whether income from agriculture income treated from other sources or not. (6) The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and boundary wall, the assessee claimed total expenses for ₹ 2,18,905/- (1,52,685/- + 66,220/-). This expenses was stated to be incurred in F.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11. However, The AO noted that in the sale deed the compound wall and room was stated to be 30 years old. Accordingly the AO held that such investment was shown simply on estimate basis and accordingly restricted such deduction for ₹ 1,50,000/-. On the other hand the appellant case is that claim of construction of ₹ 2,18,905/- was verifiable from balance sheet. However, during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not filed any evidence as to how such investment was verifiable from the balance sheet. Therefore, in respect of finding on this issue of the AO no interference is called. On careful consideration of relevant facts, it may be noted the assessee earlier purchased property in the name of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal and the investment was stated to be made from the funds of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal HUF. The assessee has shown such purchases in the books of accounts, in the case of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal HUF and the same property now been sold and in the sale deed, name of Shri Ram Gopal has on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment. On sale of this property, though there is no reference of the word HUF in the sale deed, the capital gain is declared by the HUF and also assessed by the AO in HUF. After sale of this HUF property, assessee HUF purchased the residential plot of land as per sale agreement dated 22.12.2010 for ₹ 8,01,000/- and the possession of the plot is handed over to the assessee HUF. The purchase of the land is duly declared in the balance sheet of the assessee HUF as on 31.03.2011. The payment towards land value and subsequent construction thereon is made from the funds of the HUF and reflected in the balance sheet of assessee HUF as on 31.03.2011, as on 31.03.2012 and as on 31.03.2013 and also in the statement of the Karta recorded u/s 131 during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, only because in the sale agreement, there is no reference the HUF would not make the purchase of the land and construction thereon as the individual property of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal. If this analogy is accepted then the property which is sold during the year under consideration is also not assessable in the hands of the HUF. In these circumstances when the assessee HUF has purchased the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is is the case of nonmaintenance of books of accounts. This is the cse of maintenance of books of accounts regularly and transaction duly reflected in the books nd B/s from so many years. 3. This is the case of u/s 54B This is the case of u/s 54 4 In this case funds or investment has been done for transfer from one persons to another persons In this case funds or investment has not been done or transfer from one persons to another persons. The same is done in the same name. In section 54B exemption is given for purchase of land and in sec. 54, exemption is given for construction of residential house not for purchase of land. And it is not disputed that the residential house has been constructed from the funds of HUF and shown in the B/s of HUF as also admitted by the Karta in his statements recorded by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. However the ld. AO has escaped those facts in his order. In view of the above, when the funds of the HUF has been utilized for purchase of the residential plot and construction thereon, simpl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute before us. 2.5 The above undisputed facts show clearly that the assessee has been consistent in its approach in terms of treatment and disclosure of the purchase and sale and subsequent purchase of the properties. It so happened that in the agreements, the name of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal has been mentioned wherein all the relevant facts taken together leads to the conclusion that all these transactions have been effectively done by Shri Ram Gopal Bansal as a Karta of the HUF and not in his individual capacity. Secondly, the provisions of section 45 and section 54 of the Act should be read in a harmonious manner and the Revenue has to take a holistic view of matter wherein all the facts should be considered in totality rather in a piecemeal approach. In the instant case whether the sale consideration has been brought to tax in hands of Ram Gopal Bansal HUF, the subsequent claim of relief u/s 54 should have been allowed to the assessee knowing fully well that both the original purchase/sale agreements and subsequent purchase agreement, the name has been mentioned as Ram Gopal Bansal and not Shri Ram Gopal Bansal HUF. Here, we do not agree with the observations of the ld C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en registered in joint names, support the case of the assessee. In entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decisions as referred supra, the assessee should be eligible to claim the necessary relief u/s 54 of the Act of ₹ 58,51,276 in respect of investment in plot of land and subsequent construction of house thereon. 2.6 Regarding claim of ₹ 68,905/- in respect of cost of construction of room and boundary wall, we have gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A) and are of the view that no interfere is called for. 2.7 Hence ground No.2 is partly allowed where the assessee is allowed relief under section 54 of the Act of ₹ 58,51,276 in respect of investment in plot of land and subsequent construction of house thereon. and claim of ₹ 68,905 is denied. 3. Regarding ground no.3, the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed an addition of ₹ 5,39,500/- on account of excess cash deposit over the cash withdrawal in the account maintained by the assessee. 3.1 The ld. AR has submitted that, the assessee as on 31-03-2010 was having cash balance of ₹ 2,08,829/- and debtors of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricultural income (in Rs.) 2011-12 2,35,320/- 2010-11 3,49,650/- 2009-10 1,22,365/- 2008-09 24,000/- 2007-08 1,02,687/- 2006-07 3,83,683/- 2005-06 1,98,605/- 2004-05 1,94,401/- 2003-04 1,94,401/- 2002-03 2,96,683/- The AO has not brought any material evidence on record to establish that the assessee has some other source of income which is disclosed as agricultural income. Rather the evidence filed by the assessee has not been disproved by the AO. In this there are thousand trees of Amwla. The addition so made by the AO by treating the agricultural income as income from other sources is without any basis and material on record. The AO be, therefore, directed to accept the agricultural income as declared by the assessee. Thus the AO nowhere disputed or disproved that the assessee has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
