2019 (9) TMI 252 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained deposit made in the bank account - unexplained withdrawals - HELD THAT - AO made addition of ₹ 4,51,000/- by considering the total deposit made by the assessee being ₹ 1,51,000/- at the time of opening of the account on 08.08.2009 and ₹ 3,00,000/- on 20.02.2010. There is no dispute that a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- was withdrawn from the bank account on 10.08.2009 therefore, while considering the deposit made in the bank account as unexplained the withdrawal made by the assessee of ₹ 1,50,000/- is also required to be taken into account. Though there is a time gap of the said deposit however, once income is added on account of the deposit then the withdrawal cannot be ignored as both the deposit as well as withdrawal transactions are during this financial year. Therefore, even if taking pick credit the said amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- is required to be taken into consideration. Thus, the addition made by the AO to the extent of the said amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- is not sustainable. CIT(A) has accepted the fact that the assessee was running a beauty parlour and boutique for last about 17 years and accepted the saving of the assessee of the past years but only to the extent of ₹ 1,50,000/-. CIT(A) has estimated the saving without referring the basis therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee s activity of running of beauty parlour and boutique for so many years is not dispute then the saving of ₹ 3,00,000/- as claimed of the assessee is reasonable and proper - addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Capital gain computation - cost of improvement denied while computing the capital gain on sale of land - AO as well as CIT(A) denied the claim of cost of improvement on the ground that no such averment were made in the sale deed revealing the fact of cost of improvement - HELD THAT - Except the bill on plain paper the assessee has not produced any other documents in support of the claim. The AO has also not conducted any inquiry whether any work of improvement was carried out at the site prior to the sale of the plot of land on 20.08.2009. Therefore, in the fact and circumstances of the case when neither the assessee has produced the conclusive evidence for carrying out the improvement work nor the AO conducted a proper inquiry to rebut the claim of the assessee it is proper to allow the claim of the assessee on some estimate basis. Accordingly, a sum of ₹ 40,000/- is allowed on account of cost of improvement on estimate basis. - Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained bank deposits.
2. Denial of cost of improvement claim while computing capital gain on sale of land.

Issue 1: Addition of unexplained bank deposits

The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2010-11 where the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of ?4,51,000 as unexplained deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The AO noted deposits of ?1,51,000 on 08.08.2009 and ?3,00,000 on 20.02.2010. The CIT(A) accepted a source of ?1,50,000 from the business of a beauty parlor as the past savings of the assessee, confirming the balance of ?3,01,000. The assessee contended that savings from the beauty parlor activity over 17 years justified the deposit of ?3,00,000, urging for deletion of the addition. The Tribunal observed that the withdrawal of ?1,50,000 prior to the subsequent deposit should be considered, and since both transactions occurred in the same financial year, the addition made by the AO was unsustainable. The Tribunal also found the CIT(A)'s estimation of savings without basis, thus deleting the sustained addition. The decision in Bhawani Singh vs. ITO was distinguished as inapplicable to the present case due to differing circumstances.

Issue 2: Denial of cost of improvement claim

Regarding the claim of ?1,82,805 for improvement costs while computing capital gains on the sale of land, both the AO and CIT(A) denied the claim due to lack of evidence in the sale deed. The assessee presented bills for sand and stones but failed to provide conclusive evidence of the improvement work or inquiries conducted by the AO. The Tribunal allowed a sum of ?40,000 on an estimated basis, as the absence of conclusive evidence warranted some allowance for improvement costs. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee by deleting the addition of unexplained bank deposits and allowing a partial claim for improvement costs while computing capital gains on the sale of land.