9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1252 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - AO has asked the assessee to furnish the details and complete addresses of the buyers, the assessee has not responded and no details were furnished - CIT(A) by considering the GPA directed the AO to delete the addition made by him - Held that - It is a fact that the assessee has not filed GPA before the AO. He has only filed unregistered sale deed dated 23. 08. 2011. The Ld. CIT(A) before taking into consideration of the GPA dated 24. 08. 2011, ought to have called for the remand report from the AO. Not only that in the GPA filed by the assessee, he has not referred unregistered sale agreement dated 23. 08. 2011. Therefore, it cannot be construed that the GPA executed by the assessee is in pursuance to the unregistered sale agreement. As per GPA, the market value of the property of ₹ 1,00,50,000/- only was mentioned. Nowhere, it is mentioned that the sale consideration has been received by the assessee from Mr. Atluri Ram Babu of ₹ 1,00,50,000/-. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in deleting the addition made by the AO based on GPA. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have referred the GPA to the AO and called for remand report and decide the matter - Appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues:
1. Assessment of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of unregistered sale agreement for property transaction. 3. Consideration of General Power of Attorney (GPA) in assessing the genuineness of the transaction. Issue 1: Assessment of Unexplained Cash Deposits The case involved the assessment of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted significant cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and questioned the source of these funds. The assessee claimed to have sold urban agricultural land for a substantial amount and deposited the proceeds in the bank. However, the AO found discrepancies in the unregistered sale agreement provided by the assessee, leading to the entire deposit being treated as unexplained income and added to the total income of the assessee. Issue 2: Validity of Unregistered Sale Agreement The assessee contended that the land was sold through an unregistered sale agreement, which was later supported by a General Power of Attorney (GPA) for the transaction. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) accepted the explanation provided by the assessee, stating that the contemporaneous evidence, including the GPA, sale agreement, and bank deposits, established the genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition made based on the unregistered sale agreement. Issue 3: Consideration of General Power of Attorney (GPA) The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the GPA did not explicitly mention the receipt of the sale consideration by the assessee. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report and questioned the validity of the GPA in the absence of specific references to the unregistered sale agreement. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, stating that the CIT(A) should have followed Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and remitted the matter back to the AO for proper consideration after obtaining a remand report. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitting the matter back to the AO. The cross objection filed by the assessee was dismissed.
|
