9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come - Mere suspicion without evidence on record cannot be basis for making an addition to income u/s 69 of the Act - The addition is entirely on a presumptive basis which is purely based on surmises - Thus, the addiction u/s 69 could not be made – Decided in favour of Assessee. Addition made u/s 68 of the Act – Unexplained cash credits – Bank deposits made – Held that:- During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has replied the query regarding source/explanation in respect of cash credits - By simply recording that the explanation given by the assessee is not acceptable as no corroborative evidence has been furnished to substantiate his claim, the addition is made by the AO – order set aside and the matter remitted back to the AO f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, by paying a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to one Mr. Balkrishna Govind Ratnaparkhi and Mrs. Usha Ratnakar Ratnaparkhi. Thereafter, pursuant to the agreement dated 07.10.2005, the assessee has been allotted Flat No. A-14, in Ramgiri Paradise (residential) admeasuring 585 sq.ft. carpet area in lieu of surrender of their tenancy right in the building Moghe Bhavan. The value of the flat allotted in lieu of surrender of tenancy right is Rs.50,34,897/- as per the valuation done by the Stamp Duty Authorities, while registering the agreement. As the new flat in Ramgiri Paradise has been allotted in lieu of surrender of tenancy right in Mohge Bhavan, the market value of the new flat so allotted is the consideration in respect of surrender of these tenanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... builders also suggest that the tenants transferred the tenancy rights in respect of the said property to the assessee for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. When the facts being so, firstly the lower authorities are not justified to observe that the assessee has not been able to provide any documentary proof to establish that the assessee has been a tenant in the said building. Secondly, as regards the reasoning of the Ld.CIT(A) that the acquisition value of Rs.4,00,000/- has not been paid by the assessee, we find merit in the contention of the Ld.AR that the same has been by way of constructive payment paid by the builder on behalf of the assessee which is not a new practice of the developers in business of construction industry. Thirdly, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act as the assessee had not provided an acceptable explanation or corroborative evidence to substantiate his claim that the said credits were on account of security deposit in cash from employees job workers. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) , while finding that Rs.15,500/- in the Bank of Maharashtra and Rs.31,500/- in Cosmos Co.op Bank are petty cash arising from total cash withdrawal of Rs.1,30,000/- deleted the same and confirmed the rest Rs.5,17,500/-. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee has raised this ground in the appeal before us. 3.2 Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee pleaded for one more opportunity to provide the necessary details of reconciliation before the AO. However, on the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
