2020 (6) TMI 186 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits - assessee has placed on record an abstract of his cash book - DR submitted that the authenticity of such an abstract of cash book is not established - HELD THAT - If the position of cash sales vis-a-vis the bank deposits as depicted in the abstract for the month of November, 2009 is correct, then obviously no addition on account of cash deposits in the bank can be made because such deposits can be safely presumed to have been made out of cash sales made during the month, which is much more than the amount of deposits. Concurring with the submissions of the ld. DR, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for examining the abstract of cash book given. If the same accords with the regular books of account maintained by the assessee, then no addition should be made. Addition on account of cost of improvement - as per revenue assessee failed to prove that improvement was carried out to the property in question - HELD THAT - assessee carried out improvement to the property through M/s. S.S. Rathi Developers. A copy of ledger account of the contract receipts of Mr. S. S. Rathi has been placed on record, in which receipt of ₹ 10,75,920/- from the assessee has been included. Such amount of total contract receipts at ₹ 29,56,976/- has gone into his Profit and loss account. He furnished the return with the resultant income accordingly. When the assessee furnished bill from M/s. S. S. Rathi Developers for carrying out improvement to the property and the said receipt from the assessee has been subjected to tax in the hands of Mr. S.S. Rathi, we do not find any reason for sustaining the disallowance on the ground that the assessee failed to prove that improvement - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance on account of exemption u/s.54F - Assessee owning two or more residential houses - as per revenue though the property purchased at Bibvewadi, Hyde park on 08-03-2010 was sold on 21-06-2010, but the assessee was having a separate house also at Rathi Niwas, Loni Kalbhor, Tal - HELD THAT - Benefit of exemption as per this provision can be denied if the assessee owns two or more residential houses on the date or transfer of original asset, including the new asset for which the exemption is claimed. The balance sheet of the assessee as on 31-03-2010, whose copy has been placed at page 7 of the paper book, shows the flat at Hyde Park, which was purchased on 08-03-2010 but sold after the close of the year on 24-06-2010. There is another flat at Salisbury Park reflected in the balance sheet. This was the only residential house that the assessee was owning on the date of transfer of agricultural land on 13-07-2009. The ld. CIT(A) noticed that the assessee was having one more residential house, being, Rathi Niwas, Loni Kalbhor, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune, which was shown as his residential address in the return of income. AR submitted that Rathi Niwas house belongs to his father. In support of this contention, he placed on record a copy of payment of house tax in respect of this property by his father. It, therefore, becomes evident that Rathi Niwas house was not a residential house owned by the assessee on the date of transfer of the agricultural land. The assessee was having only one house, namely, flat at Salisbury Park. After transferring the agricultural land, the assessee availed exemption by purchasing another property on 28-09-2010. Thus, it is seen that there is no violation of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of proviso to section 54F as well. Assessee was right in claiming the benefit of exemption u/s.54F. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained cash deposits
2. Addition of cost of improvement
3. Disallowance of exemption u/s.54F

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of unexplained cash deposits
The appeal concerns the addition of ?13,10,000 on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed cash deposits made by the assessee and deemed the explanation inadequate. However, the Appellate Tribunal noted discrepancies in the assessment and the cash book provided by the assessee. Upon scrutiny, it was found that the cash sales made by the assessee were sufficient to cover the deposits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the AO to re-examine the cash book to determine if the deposits were adequately explained.

Issue 2: Addition of cost of improvement
The dispute revolves around the addition of ?10,75,920 as the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee for a property sold. The AO rejected the claim due to lack of payment details to the contractor. However, the Tribunal found evidence in the ledger account of the contractor, indicating receipt of the claimed amount. As the contractor had included this amount in their profit and loss account, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for cost of improvement.

Issue 3: Disallowance of exemption u/s.54F
The final issue pertains to the denial of exemption under section 54F amounting to ?58,44,849. The AO disallowed the exemption citing specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal analyzed the timeline of property transactions and found that the assessee had complied with the conditions for claiming the exemption. It was established that the assessee did not own multiple residential properties at the time of the original asset transfer, thereby justifying the exemption u/s.54F. The Tribunal overturned the lower authorities' decision and allowed the benefit of exemption to the assessee.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, overturning the decisions on all three issues in favor of the assessee. The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper documentation and compliance with statutory provisions in determining tax liabilities and exemptions.