9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter for valuation to the DVO and thereafter conclude the assessment. The directions of the CIT (A) has legal sanctity by various judicial pronouncements, including the judgment of N Meenakshi vs. ACIT [2009 (9) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of CIT (A) - Decided against revenue. Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The cash deposited of ₹ 14,00,000/- in assessee’s accounts were duly and fully explained in the cash flow statement with supporting evidence consisting of assessee’s bank statements and the sale deed executed by the assessee as General Power of Attorney for his wife, Anjana Gupta. The copies of the cash flow statement, bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DVO and thereafter make an assessment as provided under section 50C(2) and 50C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Grounds No.3, 4 5 relate to the issue whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 14,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credits. Ground No.6 relates to the deletion of addition of ₹ 2,57,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disbelieving the cost of improvement incurred on properties which was sold. 3. We shall take up the issues ground-wise as under. GROUNDS NO.1 2 4. The assessee had sold a property. The consideration shown in the sale deed was ₹ 15,00,000/-. While computing the capital gains, the assessee has taken the sale considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the valuation of the DVO should be adopted as provided u/s 50C(1), 50C(2) 50C(3). After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the AO has not followed the complete provisions of section 50C(2) and accordingly, the AO is directed to refer the valuation to the DVO and make the assessment as provided u/s 50C(1), 50C(2) 50C(3) and as such the alternate appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. The revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 7. Ld. DR relied on the assessment order. On the other hand, the AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax Authorities and placed reliance on the findings of the CIT (A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1053000019589 with South Indian Bank Ltd Chandni chowk New Delhi. The assessee was asked to explain the source of deposit in his saving bank account. The assessee vide his letter dated 30th October 2012 submitted that the Cash deposited in account represent the advance received for and on behalf of Mrs. Anjana Gupta for prospective sale of property. The assessee was further asked to produce confirmation of the same from prospective buyer vide order sheet entry dated 17.12.2012. However the assessee has failed to produce any confirmation. Hence in the absence of any confirmation the sum of ₹ 14,00,000/- is added to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of Income Tax Act 1961. 10. On further appeal, the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record. The receipt of sale consideration in cash is duly supported by the sale deeds. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 14,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act is unwarranted and CIT (A) was justified in deleting the same. It is ordered accordingly. Grounds No.3, 4 5 are rejected. GROUND NO.6 14. The assessee has sold several properties and also claimed cost of improvement on these properties. The cost of improvement claimed was ₹ 5,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed 50% of the cost of improvement while computing the long term capital gains and hence, made an addition of ₹ 2,57,500/-. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer in making the addition reads as follows :- 6. During the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition made by the AO is deleted. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The confirmation of expenses on improvement of property before its sale has been placed on record and statement of Shri Daulat Ram Saini was recorded on oath. Confirmation and statement has been rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground not satisfactory, insufficient and not reliable which are vague and based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the same. Hence, ground no.6 raised by the revenue is rejected. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 3rd day of June, 2015. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
