9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1131 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained bank deposits - addition made as assessee failed to discharge his onus in establishing the genuineness of the land transaction and deposit in his bank account - onus to prove - Assessee s replied that he had sold the agriculture land during the Financial Year 2008-09 relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-10 - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has not adverted to the submissions of the assessee that the amount was deposited out of the sale consideration of the agricultural land. The factum of execution of Sale Deed is well established from the Sale Deeds filed by the assessee. Thus find that neither the AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) conducted any inquiry regarding the verification of the claim of the assessee that the sale consideration was the source of cash deposited in the assessee s bank account and also advance from one of the relatives. No material is placed on record to rebut the findings of assessee - therefore, direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of failure to establish the genuineness of the land transaction and deposit in the bank account. 2. Consideration of the sale of agricultural land during the Financial Year 2008-09. 3. Wrong assumption of total sales consideration of agricultural land as income. 4. Sustaining of addition of Rs.17,10,000/- as unexplained cash credit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegation of Failure to Establish the Genuineness of the Land Transaction and Deposit in the Bank Account: The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Appeals (CIT(A)) wrongly alleged that he failed to discharge his onus in establishing the genuineness of the land transaction and the deposit in his bank account. The case of Dinesh Kumar Jain (Late) Through (Legal Heir Ankit Jain) vs PCIT, [2018], 407 ITR-65(DEL) was cited, arguing its inapplicability to the present case. The assessee claimed to have sold agricultural land and deposited part of the sale proceeds into his bank account. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) found the explanation unsatisfactory and made an addition of Rs.17,10,000/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash credit. 2. Consideration of the Sale of Agricultural Land During the Financial Year 2008-09: The assessee argued that the AO and CIT(A) did not consider his explanation regarding the sale of agricultural land during the Financial Year 2008-09, relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee provided Sale Deed Nos. 551 & 553 dated 05.06.2008, showing a total sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-, out of which Rs.20,00,000/- was advanced to Shri Naveen Kumar. The transaction did not materialize, and the amount was returned and subsequently deposited in the bank. The CIT(A) and AO did not accept this explanation, citing a lack of documentary evidence and the improbability of the transaction between close relatives without specific reasons for cancellation. 3. Wrong Assumption of Total Sales Consideration of Agricultural Land as Income: The assessee contended that the AO and CIT(A) wrongly assumed the total sales consideration of agricultural land as income, which is illegal and unjustified. The AO noted discrepancies in the assessee's claims, such as the absence of a sale deed and capital account for the relevant period, and questioned the genuineness of the transaction with Shri Naveen Kumar. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings, stating that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the land transactions and the source of the cash deposits. 4. Sustaining of Addition of Rs.17,10,000/- as Unexplained Cash Credit: The primary issue in the appeal was the addition of Rs.17,10,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 69A. The AO and CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits unsatisfactory. They noted inconsistencies in the assessee's claims, such as the lack of documentary evidence and the improbability of the transaction with his nephew. The assessee argued that the sale consideration from the agricultural land was the source of the deposits, but the authorities did not conduct any inquiry to verify this claim. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) conducted any inquiry to verify the assessee's claim that the sale consideration from the agricultural land was the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the factum of the sale deed execution was well established from the documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned addition of Rs.17,10,000/-, allowing the grounds raised by the assessee. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open Court on 24th August 2022. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper verification of the assessee's claims and found that the authorities below had not adequately addressed the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of the cash deposits.
|
