2022 (8) TMI 580 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained credit u/s 68 - CIT-A deleted part addition - HELD THAT- As considering the details in respect of agricultural income we note that the assessee has substantial land holding and claimed agricultural income. CIT(A) considering the relevant evidence on record and also with submissions of the assessee following earlier years assessments restricted the addition to the extent of Rs. 8,35,667/- i.e. Rs. 81,28,523/- (-) Rs. 72,92,856/-). Therefore, we find no infirmity in the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) from para 5.2 to 5.10 of the impugned order at page 17. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is justified. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Benefit u/s 43CA - difference between the value of stamp duty and the sale consideration as per agreement to sale u/s 43CA(1) of the Act on account of deemed income - HELD THAT - CIT(A) held that the sub-section (3) of section 43CA does not provide the agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of assets should be registered. Therefore, we find that the view of the A.O in not giving benefit provided u/s 43CA(3) of the Act to the assessee is not justified. Further, the CIT(A) also discussed the relevant Explanatory note of Finance Act, 2013 for introduction of section 43CA of the Act which is reproduced by the CIT(A) in the impugned order - On perusal of the same, we note that the CIT(A) is correct in holding that the Explanatory Note also does not provide the agreement fixing the value of consideration entered into on earlier date should be registered. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is entitled for benefit u/s 43CA of the Act. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is justified on this issue and the ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2014-15.
2. Challenge to deletion of addition made on account of unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Challenge to restriction of addition under sections 68 and 43CA of the Act by CIT(A).
4. Interpretation of section 43CA regarding deemed income on the sale of land.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an appeal by the Revenue and a Cross Objection by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue revolves around the deletion of an addition of Rs. 72,92,856 made on account of unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had restricted this addition to Rs. 8,35,667. The Revenue challenged this decision. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in agriculture and trading in land, earning income from various crops. The CIT(A) considered evidence and submissions from the assessee, ultimately restricting the addition based on previous assessments and relevant facts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on this issue, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Another issue raised was the restriction of an addition under section 43CA of the Act. The assessee had entered into agreements for the sale of land in previous years, with the sale deed registered in the relevant year. The Revenue contended that the stamp duty value exceeded the consideration mentioned in the agreement, leading to an addition under section 43CA. However, the CIT(A) held that the agreement did not need to be registered for the benefit under section 43CA(3) to apply. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s interpretation, citing the Finance Act, 2013 explanatory note. The Tribunal found no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's challenge on this issue as well.

Regarding the Cross Objection by the assessee, one of the grounds related to the addition under section 43CA. However, since the Tribunal had already addressed and dismissed the Revenue's challenge on the same issue, the grounds raised by the assessee were deemed academic and therefore dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee were both dismissed by the Tribunal, each on their respective grounds.