9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 362 - AT - Income TaxCapital assets as per Section 2(14)(iii) - measuring the distance from municipal limit - Held that - For measuring the distance from municipal limit to the land is by road, not straight line method or crow flight method. Therefore, the impugned land is not capital assets as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A). Addition on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank - Held that - CIT(A) has fairly considered the business income of ₹ 85,420/- and allowed the credit of it. It is a fact that no books of account had been maintained by the assessee and sales and purchases were made in cash. The cash flow statement submitted before the Assessing Officer has thoroughly examined by the lower authority. The assessee had self generated evidence for selling the goods in cash and same cannot be verified from the third person. Therefore, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A).
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain on sale of agricultural land. 2. Confirmation of addition on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Short Term Capital Gain on Sale of Agricultural Land: The primary issue in the revenue's appeal was whether the land sold by the assessee constituted a "capital asset" under Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the land was within 8 kilometers of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation limits, thus qualifying as a capital asset subject to capital gains tax. The AO relied on the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue notification No. S.O.10(E) dated 06/01/1994, and measured the distance using the Pythagoras theorem, determining it to be 7.07 kilometers. The Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur, also confirmed the distance as 7.78 kilometers using scientific methods. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, observing that the distance should be measured by road, not by air, as supported by several judicial decisions, including the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Satinder Pal Singh (229 CTR 82). The CIT(A) also noted that the municipal limits should be considered as they existed on the date of the notification (06/01/1994), not on the date of the sale. Since the land was beyond 8 kilometers by road from the municipal limits as of the notification date, it was not a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the road distance should be considered and that the land was not a capital asset, thus deleting the addition of Rs. 76,83,277/-. 2. Confirmation of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Deposit in the Bank: The cross-objection by the assessee involved the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 2,92,580/- out of Rs. 3,78,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposits. The AO found that the assessee had deposited Rs. 6,74,000/- in cash in her bank account but could not satisfactorily explain the source of Rs. 3,78,000/-. The assessee claimed the deposits were from business receipts and opening cash balance, but the AO found the cash flow statement unreliable, noting that sales were made entirely in cash without proper documentation. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, granting relief of Rs. 85,420/- corresponding to the disclosed business income, while confirming the remaining addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee did not maintain regular books of account and the cash flow statement lacked independent verification. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s order, thus confirming the addition of Rs. 2,92,580/-. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. The deletion of the addition on account of short-term capital gain was upheld, as the land was not a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) due to its distance from the municipal limits. The confirmation of the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits was also upheld, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the cash deposits.
|
