9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65,73,500/- and allowed relief of ₹ 22,05,780/- to the assessee. - Decided against revenue Unexplained cash deposits - Held that:- Claim of the appellant that he and his mother were having savings since past years out of known sources cannot be rejected in toto. It is seen that the documentary evidences have been filed showing sale of agricultural land at ₹ 28,57,102/-. The claim of the appellant is that entire deposit of ₹ 47,77,500/- worked-out by the AO is out of past savings, in the absence of any direct evidence filed by the appellant with regard to savings utilized by him for aforesaid deposits into bank, thus have no alternative but to estimate his savings available with him and his mother. Ends of justice would meet if the accumulated savings of the appellant and his mother is taken at ₹ 20,00,000/-which could have been available with them for deposits into the bank. DR though relied on the order of AO but could not point out any specific error in the above quoted order of CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 323/ RPR /2014, Cross Objection No. 91/RPR/2015 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2018 - Shri N. S. Saini, AM And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed in the hands of the appellant. As regards claim of the appellant that the property belonged to the HUF and not to the appellant in his individual capacity. I find no merit in the claim of the appellant. I have carefully examined the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appellant has not brought on record any will by virtue of which it can be claimed by the appellant that he was not the owner in his individual capacity. In the absence of any will, as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the appellant has inherited the property in his individual capacity, therefore, the appellant's claim that the capital gain belonged to HUF is not tenable. 12.2 It was submitted that the property in consideration situated at Gurunanak Chowk, Raipur was sold for ₹ 17,00,000/- during the year. The value as per Collectorate Guidelines was ₹ 65,73,500. The appellant has claimed that the Collectorate's Guidelines was on the higher side and adoption of value of ₹ 65,73,500/-was unjustified. It is further argued that while working-out the Capital Gain, the A.O did not deduct the cost after indexing the same. The appellant has filed a Valuation Report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T.Rules, 1962. 6. On the other hand, the AR of the assessee argued that the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S.Shah Vs. CIT, (1998) 231 ITR 1, has held that, the powers of the AAC are much wider than the powers of an ordinary Court of appeal. The scope of his powers is co-terminus with that of the ITO. He can do what the ITO can do. He can also direct the ITO to do what he failed to do. The power conferred in AAC under sub-s, (4) of s. 250 of the Act being quasi-judicial power, it is incumbent on him to exercise the same if the facts and circumstances justify. If the AAC fails to exercise his discretion judicially and arbitrarily refuses to make enquiry in a case where the facts and circumstances so demand, his action would be open for correction by a higher authority. He submitted that there would have been violation of Rule 46A of I.T.Rules, 1962, if the assessee had filed any evidence on his own. The evidences were called for by the CIT(A) and on his demand same were filed by the assessee, hence, the same was outside the purview of Rule 46A of Rules, 1962 in view of sub-section (4) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 7. The DR could not controv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to ₹ 24,00,000/- and while doing so, the CIT(A) held as under :- 16.4 I have considered the arguments and written submission of the learned AR as well as Assessment Order Remand Report of the AO. The AO. in the absence of any explanation available, has added the entire sum of ₹ 47,77.500/- as deposited into bank in cash as income under undisclosed sources u/S 69. From the bank and cash compilation, I find that peak cash deposit in the account of appellant comes to ₹ 13,57,0257- on 10/12/2008. I find that cash has been withdrawn from the bank account and deposited subsequently. Therefore, peak cash deposited should be considered. Keeping in mind the possible error in calculation, the peak cash deficit Is estimated at Rs. I4,00,000/- as against total cash deposit during the year at ₹ 17.77,500/-. Thus, a relief of ₹ 3,77,500/- is allowed out of peak cash deficit. 16.5 The appellant is aged about 64 years. He has filed Returns of Income as below since A.Y. 2006-07: Assessme nt Year Income Returned Date of filing Income Tax Return Non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
