9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1291 - AT - Income TaxAddition in the hands of HUF v/s individual - advance money for purchase of land - as argued payments were made by Darshan Kumar HUF, no separate addition should be made in the hands of Darshan Kumar as an individual - HELD THAT - No addition was required to be made and ld. Counsel have also been able to demonstrate that the name of the seller and description of the property tallies with the legal notice. Even, a summary has been given in the Brief Synopsis, in which, it has been clarified that the deal was for Rs. 14 lacs per acre as stated in the agreement and on the basis of which, the addition has already been made of Rs. 20 lacs in the hands of Darshan Kumar HUF for Asstt. Year 2006-07,thus, since that addition has already been considered and made in the hands of Darshan Kumar HUF, the addition was not liable to be made on wrong interpretation of the facts of the case - Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of income assessed at Rs. 1,41,00,000/-. 2. Addition of Rs. 1,31,25,000/-. 3. Addition of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Income Assessed at Rs. 1,41,00,000/-: The appellant contested the confirmation of the income assessed at Rs. 1,41,00,000/- by the AO. However, this ground was deemed general in nature and was not specifically addressed in detail within the judgment. 2. Addition of Rs. 1,31,25,000/-: The appellant argued that the addition of Rs. 1,31,25,000/- was erroneous as the facts and circumstances were identical to the Assessment Year 2006-07 case involving Sh. Darshan Kumar HUF. During a survey at Hotel Sagar, documents indicated that payments were made by Darshan Kumar HUF and Harish Kumar for the purchase of 9.34 acres of land. The appellant contended that since the payments were made by Darshan Kumar HUF, no separate addition should be made in the hands of Darshan Kumar as an individual. The appellant provided a detailed synopsis, highlighting that the agreement for the property was in the name of Darshan Kumar HUF, and the payments were made by the HUF and Harish Kumar. The valuation report prepared for the property also supported the appellant's claim, showing that the property details, seller's name, and the agreement date matched those in the seized documents. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate these facts and incorrectly confirmed the addition. The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not provide any corroborative evidence to suggest that the assessee had invested in any other property. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,31,25,000/- was uncalled for and ordered its deletion. 3. Addition of Rs. 7,00,000/-: Regarding the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/-, the appellant argued that this addition was not maintainable. The appellant provided documents, including an agreement and a legal notice, demonstrating that the deal for the land was for Rs. 14,00,000/- per acre, with Rs. 40,00,000/- received in cash as advance. The AO had already made an addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- in the hands of Darshan Kumar HUF for AY 2006-07 based on the same agreement. The appellant contended that the AO's finding that Rs. 14,00,000/- was given as Biana was factually incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the names of the sellers and the description of the property in the legal notice matched those in the agreement, and the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- was based on a misinterpretation of the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the additions of Rs. 1,31,25,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/-. The judgment emphasized that the additions were based on incorrect interpretations and that the payments had already been accounted for in the hands of Darshan Kumar HUF. The order was pronounced in the open court on 01.07.2024.
|
