9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) ought have examined the claim of the assessee that the deposit in Karnataka Bank had come out of sale proceeds of a property acquired by her in 2007 through the Assessing Officer. Taxability of the said transaction is entirely a different issue which the AO can consider. We are of the opinion that this issue also requires a fresh look by the AO. Addition being the closing balance with UCO Bank - argument of the assessee is that this money was received by her from BBMP for contract work. As per the assessee that debtors’ account were over stated - Held that:- A close verification of this claim is required to see whether the actual billing for the work done by her for BBMP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that her husband, Shri. L. Srinivas was also having a share in the land which was sold and he had received total sum of ₹ 70,75,000/-. AO verified the assessment record of L. Srinivas and reached an opinion that the sum of ₹ 70,75,000/- received by him on sale of agricultural land was used by him for acquiring fixed assets. As per the AO, there was nothing left with L. Srinivas to give anything to the assessee. He therefore chose to disbelieve assessee s contention that she had received any gift from her husband. One more reason adduced by the AO for disbelieving assessee s version was absence of a gift deed. He held the sum of ₹ 41,41,712/- as unexplained investment of the assessee and made an addition under the head inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,948/-. Deposits in Karnataka Bank account from where the cheques were issued, as per the assessee, came out of sale proceeds of another property. Though assessee admitted that gain / loss from the sale of property was not returned or computed by the AO, as per the assessee, it constituted a good source for explaining the deposits in the bank account and purchase of the property. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Hastimal v. CIT [(1963) 49 ITR 273] for its submission that an assessee was not required to prove the source of the source. 05. In so far as the unexplained deposit of ₹ 15 lakhs in Karnataka Bank, submission of the assessee before the CIT (A) was that the deposit had come o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... funds in her bank account with M/s. Karnataka Bank from where the cheques issued by her stood explained. He therefore deleted the addition of ₹ 41,41,712/-. 08. In so far as the explanation of assessee for unexplained deposit of ₹ 15 lakhs in Karnataka Bank was concerned, CIT (A) was of the opinion that the source was explained by the assessee as arising from sale of an immovable property acquired by her in 2007. However, as per the CIT (A), the said property never appeared in the balance sheet of the assessee and hence could not be accepted as a source for explaining the deposit. He confirmed the addition of ₹ 15 lakhs. 09. In so far as addition of ₹ 30,99,000/- of the closing balance in UCO Bank was concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee without verifying whether the balances shown as due from BBMP in the books of account were correctly reconciled. 12. Opposing the above submissions of the Ld. DR, Ld. AR submitted that the source for deposits in the banks were proved by the assessee. Assessee had an account with Karnataka Bank and there were credits in the said bank account arising out of the sale of a property purchased by her in 2007. It might be true that the property was not reflected in the balance sheet . However when its sale was evidenced by a conveyance deed, source for the deposits in the bank accounts could not be denied. Taxability of surplus or deficit arising from the sale of the property, as per the Ld. AR was a different matter altogether. Furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of the sale of a property acquired by her in 2007. In the submission made by the assessee before the CIT (A), assessee itself had requested the CIT (A) to call for a remand report from the AO with regard to the documents submitted by her. However, it appears that CIT (A) without calling for the remand report confirmed the addition. We are of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) ought have examined the claim of the assessee that the deposit in Karnataka Bank had come out of sale proceeds of a property acquired by her in 2007 through the Assessing Officer. Taxability of the said transaction is entirely a different issue which the AO can consider. We are of the opinion that this issue also requires a fresh look by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
