9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 839 - AT - Income TaxCorrect head of income - Income from sale and purchase of land - chargeable to tax under the head capital gain instead of business income - HELD THAT - Tribunal in the own case of the assessee 2016 (10) TMI 1319 - ITAT AHMEDABAD has decided the issue in favor of the assessee involving identical facts and circumstances and after considering the order of the Tribunal 2013 (4) TMI 950 - ITAT AHMEDABAD pertaining to the Assessment Year 2006-07 where the activity of purchase and sale of lands was held as business income. Unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68 - CIT- A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Assessee has justified the conditions applicable with respect to cash credit u/s 68 i.e. identity, creditworthiness of the parties and the genuineness of the transactions of the loan taken from the parties as discussed above during the appellate proceedings. The necessary details furnished by the assessee in support of his claim were also forwarded to the AO for his comment. CIT(A) has given a clear finding that there was no adverse remark of the AO in the remand report with respect to the impugned unsecured loan. Therefore, CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO. At the time of hearing the Learned DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the finding of the Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income from sale and purchase of land as capital gain vs. business income. 2. Addition made on account of unexplained unsecured loan under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Income from Sale and Purchase of Land: The Revenue contended that the income generated by the assessee from the sale and purchase of land should be taxed under the head "business income" instead of "capital gain." The AO observed that the assessee sold 19 properties, incurred costs for converting agricultural lands to non-agricultural lands, and continuously purchased lands over several financial years. The AO treated the income as business income based on a precedent from the ITAT for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07, where the activity was held as business income. Consequently, an addition of ?2,80,44,681/- was made to the assessee's total income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to tax the income under the head "capital gain," referencing a prior ITAT order for AYs 2007-08, 2009-10 to 2012-13, which held that the land/properties were held as capital assets before their sale, and the gains should be chargeable under the head "Capital Gains." Upon appeal, the Tribunal noted that the facts and circumstances of the case were identical to those in the previous years where the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the properties were held as capital assets, declared as investments, and subjected to wealth tax. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)’s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the gains should be taxed under the head "capital gain." 2. Addition on Account of Unexplained Unsecured Loan: The AO added ?37,25,000/- to the assessee's income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, citing the assessee's failure to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties from whom the loans were taken. The loans in question were from Shri Pranav H. Amin (?7,25,000/-) and Bansari Enterprise (?30,00,000/-). The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the necessary details were provided, and the AO's remand report did not contain any adverse findings against the assessee. The CIT(A) concluded that the loans were genuine and met the tests under Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, observing that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to justify the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the CIT(A)’s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground as well. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the income from the sale and purchase of land should be taxed under the head "capital gain" and upholding the deletion of the addition made on account of unexplained unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The order was pronounced on 19th October 2020 at Ahmedabad.
|
