9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 78 - AT - Income TaxOn-money paid by the assessee for purchase of the immovable property - CIT(A) directing the AO to allow 5/6 th of on-money - HELD THAT - The fact that the assessee had share only to the extent of 1/6th remain undisputed before us. The alleged money as paid on the transaction, in our considered opinion, could not be considered fully in the hands of the assessee only as she was co-owner to the extent of 1/6th only. Therefore, the impugned adjudication, on this issue, could not be faulted with. The corresponding grounds raised by the revenue stand dismissed. Claim of Agricultural income - assessee admitted agricultural income as treated as income from other sources since details and evidences, in that regard, could not be furnished by the assessee - HELD THAT - CIT(A), relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in assessee s own case 2016 (9) TMI 1656 - ITAT CHENNAI reversed the action of Ld. AO as held that considering the land holding of the assessee, the income shown was quite reasonable. In case of petty farming, it may not always be practicable to maintain documentary evidences for carrying out agricultural activities. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. Since the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) follows a binding judicial precedent, no fault could not be found in the same. We order so. Addition on Account of Loan - Addition of NRNR deposits - HELD THAT - We find that the whole basis of addition by Ld. AO is the statement taken by other authorities. However, these statements have not been confronted to the assessee. Further, no independent verification has been carried out by Ld. AO to establish the fact that these deposits, in fact, constitute income of the assessee. For this reason alone, addition has been deleted by Tribunal in the case of Smt. Sushila Ramasamy. The remittances have come through banking channels from foreign sources and therefore, the same could not be considered as assessee s income. We order so. The corresponding grounds raised by the revenue stand dismissed. Addition on account of Accretion to Assets - HELD THAT - We find that the stated facts could not be controverted by revenue before us. The assessee is able to demonstrate that it has extra sources to the extent of Rs. 60.95 Lacs as against impugned addition of Rs. 45.23 Lacs. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order, on this issue. The corresponding grounds raised by the revenue stand dismissed. The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. Unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT - We find that the amount of Rs. 15 Lacs as accepted by Ld. AO has similarly been received by the assessee through banking channels vide cheque no. 397154 dated 05.03.1996. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the remaining amount was to be considered as unexplained cash credit. The assessee has also placed account confirmation from the said party on page no. 57 of the paper-book. Therefore, the impugned order, on this issue, could not be faulted with. The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Relief granted on account of alleged on-money. 2. Claim of Agricultural income. 3. Addition of NRNR deposits. 4. Addition on account of Accretion to Assets. 5. Unexplained cash credit (for AY 1996-97). Summary: 1. Relief granted on account of alleged on-money: The assessee, along with co-owners, sold property for Rs. 10.87 Lacs, but the DVAC report indicated an additional Rs. 76 Lacs was paid in cash. The AO added this amount to the assessee's income, but the CIT(A) reduced it to 1/6th, reflecting the assessee's share in the property. The Tribunal upheld this reduction, noting the assessee's limited ownership share. 2. Claim of Agricultural income: The assessee claimed Rs. 1.25 Lacs as agricultural income, which the AO treated as 'income from other sources' due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A), referencing a previous Tribunal decision, found the income reasonable given the landholding and reversed the AO's decision. The Tribunal upheld this, citing the binding judicial precedent. 3. Addition of NRNR deposits: The AO alleged that NRNR deposits held by Smt. Sushila Ramasamy were actually the assessee's income based on statements from bank managers. The CIT(A) noted these deposits came through banking channels and were already taxed in Smt. Sushila Ramasamy's case, where the Tribunal found no corroborative evidence linking the deposits to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of independent verification by the AO. 4. Addition on account of Accretion to Assets: The AO added Rs. 45.23 Lacs as unexplained investment, noting discrepancies between declared income and asset accretion. The CIT(A) found the assessee had sufficient loan sources to cover the accretion and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld this, noting the revenue could not controvert the facts presented by the assessee. 5. Unexplained cash credit (for AY 1996-97): The AO added Rs. 30 Lacs as unexplained cash credit due to insufficient explanation for a credit balance. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld this, noting the amount was received through banking channels and supported by account confirmation. Conclusion: Both appeals by the revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions across all issues, finding no fault in the reliefs granted to the assessee. Order pronounced on 23rd June, 2023.
|
