9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1432 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account for cash deposits in Bank account - purchaser admitted that the advance was paid as mentioned in the agreement to sell but did not agree to the payment of the total amount mentioned as a sale consideration - HELD THAT - As assessee i.e; the seller as well as the purchaser acted in accordance with the contents mentioned in the agreement to sell and the assessee received the amount on behalf of the co-owners and himself, out of the said amount, cash was deposited in the bank on the next day of getting the sale deed registered. The contents mentioned in the agreement to sell i.e; the payment of advance money of Rs. 40,00,000/- for sale of 12 Acres agricultural land, were accepted by the seller as well as the AO as genuine then there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of other part of the agreement to sell i.e; the 12 Acres of land was sold @ 21,00,000/- per Acre for a sum of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- which was sufficient to explain the deposit of Rs. 2,05,50,000/- on 04/01/2011 i.e; the next day of registration of sale deed. We therefore considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove deem it appropriate to delete the impugned addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account. 2. Addition of Rs. 22,50,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account. 3. Non-adjudication of the ground regarding an addition of Rs. 1,70,000/- being agricultural income for rate purposes. 4. General grievance against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account: The assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 1,42,300/-. During scrutiny, the AO noticed cash deposits of Rs. 5,92,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account with State Bank of Patiala and Rs. 58,00,000/- in State Bank of India. The AO required the assessee to explain the source of these deposits. The assessee claimed the deposits were from the sale of agricultural land as per an agreement dated 30/04/2010, which was not registered with the Revenue Department. The AO did not accept the explanation due to inconsistencies and lack of documentary evidence. The AO added Rs. 1,32,90,000/- to the income of the assessee, which was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), who observed that the sale deed was registered at a lower value to evade stamp duty, indicating a conspiracy between the buyer and the seller. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the ITAT Chandigarh Bench decision in the case of Shri Mohinder Singh, which held that unregistered agreements cannot be relied upon over registered sale deeds. The Tribunal, however, found that the AO and the purchaser accepted the advance payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- as per the agreement to sell. The Tribunal held that the AO should have accepted the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,52,00,000/- as per the agreement since the advance payment was acknowledged. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,32,90,000/-. 2. Addition of Rs. 22,50,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account: The AO noticed cash deposits of Rs. 22,50,000/- in the assessee's bank account on various dates, which the assessee could not explain with documentary evidence. The AO added this amount to the income, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished a cash flow statement, which was not considered by the AO or the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to consider the cash flow statement. 3. Non-adjudication of the ground regarding an addition of Rs. 1,70,000/- being agricultural income for rate purposes: This ground was not pressed by the assessee and thus did not require any comment from the Tribunal. 4. General grievance against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals): This ground was general in nature and did not require any specific comment from the Tribunal. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly. The addition of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- was deleted, and the issue of Rs. 22,50,000/- was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. The other grounds did not require any specific adjudication.
|
