9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 779 - AT - Income TaxCash found and seized during the course of search - search u/s 132 - HELD THAT - Assessee had offered the sum of ₹ 2,94,17,500/- as income for the A.Y.2009-10 representing the profit on sale of lands. The assessee also explained that he kept the said sum in lockers and did not carry on any business activity during the year. As per section 69A of the Act the cash found in the possession of the assessee for which the assessee fails to offer any explanation required to be taxed. In the instant case the assessee had explained the source of cash found in his possession and also offered the same for taxation in the A.Y.2009-10. The AO made the addition of same amount which was already taxed by the AO for the A.Y.2009-10 and taxing the same amount in 2010-11 is nothing but double taxation which is not permitted by the law. The department also did not place any evidence to show that the cash seized does not represent the income offered for the A.Y.2009-10. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. - Decided against revenue Addition u/s 40A(3) - advances paid for purchase of lands - HELD THAT - Mere payment of advances for purchase of land cannot be treated as the purchase unless the transaction is complete. As per the presumption, the notings made in the seized documents are true and correct. The assessee did not maintain the diary for the sake of the department and he maintained the diary for personal use. Therefore whatever notings made in the diary required to be considered as true and correct unless there is material to establish otherwise. In the instant case, the department did not place any evidence to show that the notings made in the diary were incorrect or partially correct. Therefore, we hold that the transactions recorded in the notings are nothing, but the token advances given for purchase of land and received back along with profit, thus, the same cannot be treated as purchase and sale transactions. Section 40A(3) is not applicable in the case of advances given for purchase of land. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed. Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - In the instant case, as seen from the order of the AO as well as the CIT(A), the AO made the addition disbelieving the agricultural income as well as the unexplained cash deposits from the bank account. No evidence was brought on record with regard to incriminating material found during the course of search to support the additions made by the AO in the assessment order. Therefore the appeals are covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Rayapati Venkata Koteswara Prasad 2017 (9) TMI 1866 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM , hence, we hold that the addition made by the AO is bad in law accordingly the same are deleted. The appeals of the assessee for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed. Income from other sources - assessee has not carried out any agricultural operations - HELD THAT - Assessee has stated that he has taken the land on lease from Agnikula Kshatriya Sangam, Jupudi Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and cultivated paddy, maize etc. There were no lease agreements, no bills, no vouchers produced by the assessee before the AO or CIT(A). The President of Agnikula Kshatriya Sangam also denied having given the lands on lease. No other evidence was brought on record by the assessee to hold that the assessee had in fact cultivated the agricultural land. The Ld.CIT(A) in his order observed that the assessee failed to establish the onus regarding genuineness of the claim before the Income Tax department. During the appeal hearing also, the assessee failed to place any material to show that he had carried out the agricultural operations. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Taxation of cash found during the search. 2. Addition under Section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding ?20,000. 3. Agricultural income claims and their treatment under Section 68. 4. Treatment of advances as purchases in real estate transactions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxation of Cash Found During the Search: - Facts: A search under Section 132 was conducted, and cash amounting to ?2,94,17,500/- was found. The assessee claimed the cash was already admitted as income for A.Y. 2009-10. - Assessing Officer (AO): Treated the cash as undisclosed income for A.Y. 2010-11. - CIT(A): Deleted the addition, noting that taxing the same amount in A.Y. 2010-11 would result in double taxation. - Tribunal: Upheld CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the cash was already admitted as income for A.Y. 2009-10 and no evidence was provided by the department to tax it again in A.Y. 2010-11. 2. Addition Under Section 40A(3) for Cash Payments Exceeding ?20,000: - Facts: The AO added ?8,40,00,000/- under Section 40A(3), considering the advances given for land purchases as cash purchases. - CIT(A): Deleted the addition, stating that the advances did not constitute purchases and there was no evidence of actual purchase or sale transactions. - Tribunal: Affirmed CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of details in the diaries and the absence of registered documents or possession of land, which are necessary to constitute a purchase. 3. Agricultural Income Claims and Their Treatment Under Section 68: - Facts: The assessee did not file returns originally, and the AO made additions by rejecting the agricultural income claims. - CIT(A): Allowed partial relief but sustained most additions. - Tribunal: Deleted the additions for A.Y. 2004-05 to 2007-08, as there was no incriminating material found during the search to support the additions. For A.Y. 2008-09, the Tribunal upheld the AO's decision as the assessee failed to provide evidence of agricultural operations. 4. Treatment of Advances as Purchases in Real Estate Transactions: - Facts: The AO treated advances given for land as purchases and applied Section 40A(3). - CIT(A): Held that the advances did not constitute purchases, as there was no evidence of actual transactions. - Tribunal: Supported CIT(A)'s view, emphasizing that mere advances without completed transactions do not amount to purchases. The Tribunal noted the prevalent practice in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana of making token advances without completing transactions. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11, upheld the deletion of additions under Section 40A(3), and allowed the assessee's appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 to 2007-08. The appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 was dismissed due to the lack of evidence supporting the agricultural income claim. The judgment emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in making additions and the avoidance of double taxation.
|
