2015 (5) TMI 719 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gain - CIT(A) deleting addition on account of capital Gain claimed as exempt which was never disclosed to the Department and treating revised computation of assessment proceedings after detecting the same by Department as revised return - CIT(A) observed that the case is righty covered u/s. 49(1) and cost of acquisition which is indexed is taken to be cost to the previous owner - Held that - Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and precedents, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasonable order on this issue by deleting the addition of ₹ 26,85,470/-, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue.The assessee had made the total payment within the time frame u/s. 54F of and therefore, transfer should be deemed to have taken place. - Decided in favour of assesse. Unexplained cash deposit - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) has observed that the opening cash as on 1.4.2008 should be deemed as acceptable. He observed that gift from mother is fully substantiated as copies of her income tax returns of last and relevant year alongwith document evidence of source is rightly produced. Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the cash withdrawn from the bank is evidenced by the Bank statement. We find considerable cogency in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that gift from mother-in-law does not seem very excessive. Considering she owns a agricultural land as is substantiate with the documentary evidence. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) is quite right in deleting the addition on account of unexplained cash.- Decided in favour of assesse. CIT(A) accepting additional evidence - Held that - CIT(A) has concluded that the appeal be disposed off on the records available as it has been around 3 months and no report has been received fill date and further there does not seem to be any delay from the assessee during remand proceedings. From the above, we do not find any violation on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A. In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the issue in dispute, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same by rejecting the ground no. 3 raised by the Revenue..- Decided in favour of assesse

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of capital gain claimed as exempt
2. Deletion of unexplained cash deposit
3. Acceptance of additional evidence without granting extension to AO

Issue 1: Deletion of capital gain claimed as exempt

The case involved the appellant appealing against the deletion of Rs. 26,85,470 on account of capital gain claimed as exempt. The appellant argued that the revised computation filed by the assessee should not be considered as a revised return. The tribunal examined the details of the capital gain computation and observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly concluded that the addition was not justified. The tribunal upheld the decision based on precedents and the provisions of the Income Tax Act regarding exemptions under section 54F.

Issue 2: Deletion of unexplained cash deposit

The second issue pertained to the deletion of Rs. 10,25,000 made on account of an unexplained cash deposit. The Ld. CIT(A) found the opening cash balance acceptable and noted that the gift from the mother was substantiated with relevant documents. The tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that the cash withdrawal was evidenced by bank statements and that the gift from the mother-in-law was reasonable considering her ownership of agricultural land. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the decision to delete the addition of the unexplained cash deposit.

Issue 3: Acceptance of additional evidence without granting extension to AO

The final issue revolved around the acceptance of additional evidence without granting an extension to the Assessing Officer (AO) for submission of the Remand Report, which was alleged to be in contravention of Rule 46A. The tribunal noted that the AO had not provided the Remand Report even after several requests, leading to financial difficulties for the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) decided to dispose of the appeal based on the available records, considering the delay in receiving the report. The tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A by the Ld. CIT(A) and upheld the decision to proceed without the Remand Report.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the decisions made by the Ld. CIT(A) on all three issues. The judgment provided detailed analysis and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, along with considerations of precedents and factual circumstances in each issue addressed.