9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest portion as against the income from other sources and has never claimed under section 24 of the Act. Since the assessee has also not filed any evidence whatsoever in support of its claim before the authorities below or before this Tribunal, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - ITA No. 328/Hyd/2015, ITA.No.325/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2016 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member For the Petitioner : Mr. M. Sitaram For the Respondent : Mr. G. Kalyan Das ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J. M. Both the appeals are cross-appeals for the A.Y. 2011-12. In the Revenue s appeal (ITA.No.328/Hyd/15), it is noticed that the addition made by the A.O. is ₹ 23,81,398 and the Ld. CIT(A) has granted only partial relief and the tax effect in this appeal is only ₹ 4.67 lakhs. In view of CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed as withdrawn by the department. 2. In the result, ITA.No.328/Hyd/2015 of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA. No. 325/Hyd/2015 : 3. This is assessee s appeal. We find that though the assessee has raised a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vance of ₹ 21 lakhs towards purchase of agricultural land under consideration. 4.1. The A.O. called for certain details from Mr. Surendra Yadav which were also filed. It was further submitted that the said Surendra Yadav derives income from maintenance of she-buffaloes and sale of milk which forms part of agricultural activity and hence, has not filed any income tax returns till date. To ascertain the correctness of the transactions and to verify the creditworthiness of the said party, the A.O. issued summons under section 131 of the I.T. Act and a statement dated 26.12.2013 was recorded. In the said statement, Mr. Surendra Yadav confirmed that the sum of ₹ 21 lakhs is given to the assessee herein in cash in three installments and that he has mobilized the amount from his family members and has given it to the assessee for purchase of ac.2.00 of agricultural land at Nandigam (v) of Kothur (M), Mahabubnagar District. Further, it was also stated that the amount was not mobilized over a period of one year alone but was out of savings for the last many years. In an answer to the question as to why the agreement with Mr. K.Y. Patil was cancelled after making huge advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contentions by placing reliance upon the assessment order and also the factum that the agreement of sale was un-registered. He also submitted that the purchaser could not establish his creditworthiness to have advanced a sum of ₹ 21 lakhs on the date of entering into agreement of sale. Thus, according to him, the entire addition made by the A.O. ought to be sustained. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in rebuttal drew our attention to the receipts and payments statement filed in the paper book to demonstrate that the assessee had reflected these payments in its statement and therefore, the provisions of section 69A are not applicable, to which, the Ld. D.R. rebutted stating that the receipts and payments statement is not part of the books of account and that the assessee has not maintained nor furnished any books of account for verification by the A.O./Ld. CIT(A). 8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that section 69A of the Act applies, where an assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which is not reflected in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve not been refuted by the Revenue with any cogent material, we do not see any reason not to accept assessee s contentions as true and correct. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) having accepted the genuineness of the transactions ought not to have disallowed ₹ 5,88,000 on the sole ground that the sum was deposited after a period of two months from the date of agreement of sale. There is no requirement under the law that under the Act assessee has to deposit the entire sale consideration into his bank account immediately. The assessee may retain some amount for his personal or business needs and can subsequently make the deposit as per his convenience. Therefore, the reason on which the Ld. CIT(A) has made the disallowance of ₹ 5,88,000, is, in our opinion, not sustainable. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of D.Yasodamma vs. CIT reported in (1968) 70 ITR 515 was seized of a similar issue and has held that the amount withdrawn by the assessee therein two months back must be considered to be available with her for deposit subsequently. Thus, the contention of the assessee is sustainable. Though the Revenue appeal has been dismissed on account of low tax effect, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
