9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 329 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment - unregistered agreement - addition on account of agricultural land and deposits before the date of sale - Held that - Order of the learned CIT(A) is quite reasoned one and is based on the identical issue dealt with by the learned CIT(A) in the preceding year since the assessee was not accorded the benefit of cross-examining through Shri Tazbar Singh Bhandari and the purchaser Shri Dharmendra Singh and such statement cannot be used against the assessee. The only question is whether the middlemen, namely, Shri Ayodhya Prasad Semwal and Shamim Ahmad entered into an agreement with Shri Tajbar Singh Bhandari or not. It is immaterial to the assessee s case. Once they have confirmed that they paid the money to the assessee on account of the sale of his land, the source of the money is to be investigated in their hands. As far as the assessee is concerned, the source is explained. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as unexplained investment and brought to tax as such. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on this account is unsustainable. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Importance of unregistered agreement versus registered legal deeds. 2. Addition on account of capital gain from the sale of land. 3. Addition due to unexplained deposits in the assessee's bank account. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Importance of Unregistered Agreement versus Registered Legal Deeds: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred by prioritizing an unregistered agreement over registered legal deeds. The CIT(A) had considered the agreement for sale, which transferred control of the land to certain individuals for development purposes, as a valid transaction under sub-clause (v) of clause (47) of section 2 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee was not given the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses, whose statements were used against him. Consequently, the CIT(A) concluded that the unregistered agreement had sufficient circumstantial evidence to be considered valid, thus dismissing the Revenue's argument. 2. Addition on Account of Capital Gain from the Sale of Land: The AO added ?11,66,616/- as capital gain, arguing that the land lost its agricultural nature when it was divided into residential plots before the sale. The CIT(A) examined whether the profit from the sale of the land could be taxed as capital gains. The CIT(A) referenced previous judgments and legal provisions, emphasizing that the land in question was agricultural and located more than 8 kilometers from municipal limits, thus not qualifying as a capital asset. The CIT(A) reiterated that the land's agricultural status remained unchanged despite the plotting, and therefore, no capital gains tax was applicable. This view was supported by various court rulings, including those from the High Courts of Karnataka, Allahabad, and Madras, which upheld the agricultural status of similar lands. 3. Addition Due to Unexplained Deposits in the Assessee's Bank Account: The AO had added ?26,81,000/- to the assessee's income, citing unexplained deposits in the bank account. The CIT(A) found that the deposits were indeed from the sale of agricultural land. The CIT(A) noted that the transactions were confirmed by intermediaries and purchasers, and the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of the deposits. The CIT(A) also addressed other deposits, such as those from the assessee's son-in-law and repayments of loans, finding them to be adequately explained. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, except for a small portion of ?1,60,000/- which remained unexplained. Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, agreeing that the addition on account of capital gains was unsustainable as the land was agricultural and not a capital asset. The ITAT also concurred that the source of the deposits was sufficiently explained, and thus, the additions made by the AO were unsustainable. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed. Final Order: The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 20th April, 2017.
|
