2017 (7) TMI 653 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposits - Held that - Facts and material on record clearly support the explanation of the assessee that assessee genuinely entered into agreement to sell dated 08.05.2008 and received advance of ₹ 31 lacs through the agreement and agreement was witnessed by Shri Sandeep Uppal, property dealer who has confirmed the entire transaction in his statement recorded by Assessing Officer at appellate stage. There is no dispute that assessee is owner of the property. The receipts of receiving advance money and refunding part of the amount have been placed on record. Therefore, assessee is able to prove that assessee has received the amount of ₹ 31 lacs on account of advance received for sale of property. The objections of the Assessing Officer have, therefore, been met and as such, there was no justification for the authorities below to make and confirm the addition of ₹ 31 lacs. Therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the entire addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of cash deposit in bank account under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Invocation of Section 69-A by the CIT (A) instead of Section 68 by the Assessing Officer.
3. Lack of proof of identity and creditworthiness of the buyer in a property sale transaction.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the addition of a cash deposit of ?31,00,000 in the assessee's bank account under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer treated the amount as unexplained cash credits due to the lack of substantiation regarding the source of the deposit. The appellant claimed the deposit was from an advance received for the sale of a property, supported by an 'Agreement to Sell.' However, the Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the explanation provided by the assessee, leading to the addition being made.

2. The CIT (A) confirmed the addition but invoked Section 69-A instead of Section 68, as the identity of the buyer was not proven. The CIT (A) held that since the identity of the buyer was not established, the amount was to be treated as an unexplained deposit under Section 69-A. The appellant's argument that the amount was returned to the buyer after withdrawal from the bank account was dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting the claim.

3. The appellant challenged the addition before the CIT (A) by providing receipts and documents related to the property sale transaction. The CIT (A) upheld the addition, emphasizing the lack of proof regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the buyer. However, during the appellate stage, the Assessing Officer conducted further inquiries and recorded a statement from the property dealer involved in the transaction. The property dealer confirmed the transaction, the advance payment, and the cancellation of the deal, providing crucial evidence supporting the appellant's claim. Consequently, the appellate authority set aside the previous decisions and deleted the entire addition of ?31,00,000.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee based on the evidence provided during the appellate stage, which established the genuineness of the property sale transaction and the source of the cash deposit in the bank account.