9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the A.O. is held as a valid assessment. Unexplained cash deposit - Held that:- Looking to the amount of income disclosed by both the assessee’s and also in the given circumstances of the case, the assessee has been consistently making transactions through its various bank accounts and withdrawing and depositing the cash and also one cannot ignore the possibility of accumulated cash for so many years, we are of the considered view that no addition was called for towards unexplained cash deposit at ₹ 1,28,500/-, ₹ 1,88,939/- and ₹ 1,05,000/- for Assessment Year 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2011-12 in the case of Shri D.K. Swami and similarly no addition was called for in the case of Smt. Preeti Swami at ₹ 63,000/- for Assessment Year 2011-12. We accordingly delete these additions. Addition of Long Term Capital Gain from sale of residential house - issue of exemption u/s 54 - Held that:- If the assessee has not declared the same in the return of income but has made the claim during the assessment proceedings, then the lower authorities should have acted as per the provisions of law and should have examined as to whether the assessee has adhered/complie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making addition for unaccounted/undisclosed investment in agriculture land is similar to the one made by him in the hands of Shri D.K. Swami towards the unexplained investment in residential houses/flats. In this case also the Ld.A.O has stepped into the shoes of Valuation Officer and has calculated the prevailing market rate which in our view is inconsistent as the Ld.A.O is not an expert in this field and he ought to have made the reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A of the Act so as to assess the fair market price. Therefore we direct the Ld.A.O to refer the matter of valuation of impugned agricultural land to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The assessee is also directed to furnish the necessary documents before both the authorities and to provide cooperation in getting the valuation done - ITA (SS) No.39 to 43/Ind/2017, ITA (SS) No.44 And 45/Ind/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2018 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri Lal Chand, CIT For The Assessee : Ms. Shalini Mehta, CA ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM. These bunch of Seven appeals are filed at the instance of two assessee s namel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led before Ld.CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 6. Now both the assessee s are in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first common issue relating to Shri D.K. Swami and Smt. Preeti Swami relates to challenging the validity of search and the assessment proceedings carried thereafter. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that during the course of search various incriminating documents were found and the alleged connection of the assessee with the SR Group was unearthed by the revenue authorities. In the given facts and circumstances of the case as well as the findings of lower authorities, we find no merit in this common issue raised by both the assessee s and therefore confirm the following view taken by Ld.CIT(A); 5.2. I have considered the facts of the case, written submissions of the learned AR, perused the case records and various decisions cited. The appellant Shri D.K. Swami who is The Director in VNS Group of Institutions, Bhopal, residing at B-23, Surendra Estate, chuna Bhatti, Bhopal with his wife Smt. Preeti D Swami. A search was conducted in the SR Group Bhopal. The flagship concems of the group are M/s S.R. Fer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of Appeal 1 2 are dismissed . 9. In the result this common issues raised in Ground No.1 2 of both the assessee s in above captioned seven appeals stands dismissed. 10. Now we take up next common issue relating to unexplained cash deposit. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred and relied on the submissions made before the lower authorities and the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of Ld.CIT(A). 11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through this common issue the assessee has challenged the findings of Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition towards unexplained cash deposit in the case of Shri D.K. Swami at ₹ 1,28,500/-, ₹ 1,18,000/- and ₹ 1,05,000/- for Assessment Year 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively and in the case of Smt. Preeti Swami at ₹ 63,000/- for Assessment Year 2011-12. We find that addition for unexplained cash were also made for other assessment years but Ld. CIT(A) deleted the same for the smallness of the amount. The assessee has provided cash flow statement and details of bank deposits. Source of deposits was claimed to have been proved before the lower authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his house at Vidisha for a sum of ₹ 13,00,000/- during the financial year 2008-09. As per the Stamp Valuation Authority the sale consideration was taken at ₹ 17,16,500/-. After giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition remaining amount of Long Term Capital Gain is computed at ₹ 1,88,939/-. There is no dispute for this figure of Long Term Capital Gain by both the parties. The issue arised when the assessee was denied the benefit under Section 54 of the Act. The assessee has purchased residential house in the name of his wife at B-23, Surendra Estate, Chuna Bhatti, Bhopal at ₹ 22,51,700/- and also purchased another residential house on 15.4.2011 at ₹ 5,28,125/- at 226, CI Estate, Bhopal. From going through the findings of Ld. Assessing Officer we find that he has not entertained the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act for purchase of residential house out of the sale consideration received from sale of residential house. He has merely commented upon the price of purchase vis- -vis the prevailing market rate but nowhere gave cognizance to the fact that assessee was eligible for the benefit of section 54 of the Act. Even Ld.CIT(A) also did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 30,00,000/- and accordingly made addition for unexplained investment of ₹ 15,39,000/-. Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 16. From going through the orders of both the lower authorities we observe that the Assessing Officer has merely made the estimation. There is no finding about the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authorities in the purchase deed i.e. whether the value as per the stamp valuation authority was more than the purchase consideration paid by the assessee. It is also discernable from records that the names and address of the seller have been provided to the Assessing Authority and one of them has even accepted the transaction. Even if for any reason the Ld.A.O could not place hands on the copies of purchase deeds then also it had sufficient powers u/s 55A of the Act which provides for making reference to the Valuation Officer. For sake of understanding we mention below the provisions of Section 55A of the Act. Section 55A : Reference to Valuation Officer. 55A. With a view to ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset for the purposes of this Chapter, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h at the level of the Assessing Officer as well as Departmental Valuation Officer. In the result Ground No. 4 5 in the case of Shri D.K. Swami for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes. 19. Now we come to the last issue which relates to unexplained investment in the purchase of agriculture land at village Funda, District Bhopal in the case of Smt. Preeti Swami for Assessment Year 2009-10. Brief facts are that the assessee purchased agriculture land at Khasra No.83, 104/84/5/1 in Rakba No. 0.21 hect, Khasra No. 83, 104/84/6/2 in Rakba No. 0.15 hect. (Total 16380 Sq.ft) purchased on 26.5.2008 at ₹ 4,90,000/-. Details of the seller of the land provided to the Assessing Officer along with his address however he did not turned up against the summon u/s 131 issued to him. The assessee contended that the impugned land has been purchased at the fair market price and transaction have been duly disclosed in the income tax returns. However Ld.A.O was of the view that fair market price of the land is around ₹ 10,00,000/- and the assessee has merely paid a sum of ₹ 4,90,000/-. Undisclosed investment at ₹ 5,10,000/- was worked out and he accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
