2018 (7) TMI 45 - AT - Income Tax

Long term capital gain on the sale of a plot of land rejected - no evidences of the purchase and the sale of the land hence addition u/s 68 - Held that - The assessee in this case has failed to prove that, the long term capital gain disclosed in the return of income during this year, is nothing but the long term capital gain that arose to the assessee on the sale of a plot of land at Jaipur during the financial year 2006-07 relevant to assessment year 2007-08. Coming to the plea that the addition cannot be made u/s 68 as this amount entered into books of accounts, the receipt in question is taxable as undisclosed income as pleaded by the ld. DR. It is well settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of provision does not invalidate the addition. See case of Action for Welfare and Awakening Rural Environment vs. DCIT 2003 (3) TMI 49 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT . In this case all that the AO did, was to hold that this receipt cannot be taxed under the head Capital Gains but was to be taxed under the head other sources as unexplained income. The assessee had claimed that it had received an amount of ₹ 7,50,000/- on sale of capital asset and thereafter could not substantiate the same. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of long term capital gains, applicability of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, validity of addition to income, relevance of documentary evidence, year of taxability determination.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an individual, declared long term capital gains of ?2,73,905 from the sale of a plot of land for ?7,50,000 during the Assessment Year 2011-12. However, as the appellant failed to produce supporting documents during scrutiny, an addition was made under section 68 of the Act. The appellant contended that the sale proceeds were not credited to the books of accounts and relied on a judgment to support this claim.

2. The Revenue opposed the appellant's contentions, stating that the appellant admitted receiving ?7,50,000 but failed to substantiate the claim of long term capital gains. The Revenue argued that non-entry in the books of accounts does not negate the applicability of section 68 and that the appellant's attempt to change the tax year was misleading.

3. The appellant argued that the capital gains were actually earned in the earlier assessment year but were disclosed in the current year due to genuine reasons. The assessing officer, however, considered the appellant's actions as fabricating a story to avoid tax liability.

4. The appellate authority considered the appellant's submissions and the Revenue's contentions. After a thorough review of the facts and case law, the authority upheld the addition under section 68, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The authority found inconsistencies in the appellant's claims and concluded that the addition was justified based on the evidence presented.

5. The authority also addressed the issue of incorrect mention of the tax provision, citing a precedent where the incorrect mention did not invalidate the addition. In contrast to a previous judgment cited by the appellant, the authority distinguished the case based on the lack of substantiation of the claimed amount of ?7,50,000 in the present case.

6. Ultimately, the authority upheld the addition under section 68, emphasizing the importance of substantiating claims and dismissing the appellant's appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 27.06.2018, affirming the decision against the appellant.