9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms on the 1st floor of the building. There is no mentioned in the valuation report of the registered valuer about the two rooms on the 1st floor of the building viz a viz wall fencing. The registered valuer has valued the property taking the entire land and the building constructed thereon for the entire built-up area of the building as on 1st April 1981. As such the valuer has not reduced the built up area in respect to the impugned two rooms to determine actual built up area of the property as on 1-4-1981. Accordingly, no separate deduction on account of the cost of improvement for constructing two rooms and wall fencing can be given to the assessee in the given facts and circumstances. - decided against assessee. Addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that:- The assessee in the present case has just explained the source of the cash deposited in the bank but failed to substantiate the same by documentary evidence. The onus lies on the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposited in the bank from documentary evidence which assessee failed. There was no dispute regarding the sale consideration of the immovable property. The assessee has also not challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought riot to have upheld the addition of ₹ 8,48,600/-towards capital gain on sale of house property by rejecting the cost of improvement to the house property. 2.3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT(A) ought to have allowed a part of the cost of improvement because there could not be any improvement without incurring the cost. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹ 4,40,000/- towards cash deposits in bank a/c. 3.2 Without prejudice above, in case CIT(A) believed the cash deposits as cash component of the sale of the house property, the same should-be assessed as capital gain and not income from other sources. It is therefore, prayed that the additions upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 3. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is that learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by making the addition of ₹ 8,48,600/- under the head capital gain. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has shown his main source of income under the head salary. The assessee is an employee of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnished. 4. The contractor namely Shri Dilip K. Mistry party did not appear in response to the notice issued under section 131 of the Act. ( b) Regarding wall fencing and renovation: Shri Gautam P. Suthar 1. The copy of the original bill was not furnished. 2. The copy of the income tax return was not furnished. 3. The copy of the bank passbook was not furnished. 4. The party in response to the notice issued under section 131 of the Act has admitted that the bill was issued to the assessee on his request in connection with some income tax matter. 7. All the above-stated facts were brought to the notice of the assessee by the AO, but the assessee remained silent. 8. The AO also observed that the valuation report from the registered valuer dated 18th November 2010 does not speak about the construction of 1st floor and compound wall as claimed by the assessee. Because of the above, the AO disregarded the claim of the cost of improvement of the assessee and worked out the long-term capital gain of ₹ 8,48,600/- only. Thus, the AO added the addition for the sum of ₹ 8,48,600/- as long-term capital gain to the total income of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee on the cost of improvement claimed by him. The learned CIT-A subsequently confirmed the view taken by the AO. 14.1 Now the controversy before us arises for our adjudication to whether the assessee has incurred any cost of the improvement in the given facts and circumstances. In this regard, we note that the initial onus lies on the assessee to substantiate his claim from documentary evidence. The assessee before the AO filed the duplicate copies of the bills issued by 2 parties justifying the cost of improvement incurred by him. The details of the same stand as under: 1. Dilip K. Mistry Construction of two new rooms ₹ 15,12,000.00 2. Riddi Siddi Furniture Wall fencing and renovation ₹ 9,95,800.00 14.2 However, we note that the above claim of the assessee was not substantiated before the authorities below by supporting evidence. Moreover, one of the party namely Dilip K. Mistry did not appear in response to the notice issued under section 131 of the Act. Similarly, the other party namely Gautam P. Suthar Prop of Riddi Siddi Furnitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng from 15th April 2010 to 28th April 2010. After that there was no cash deposited by the assessee in the bank. iv) The cash was deposited immediately after the sale of the immovable property on 13th April 2010. 16.1 Because of the above, the AO treated the sum of cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO added the sum of ₹ 4.40 lacs to the total income of the assessee. 17. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT (A). The assessee before the learned CIT (A) contended that the cash was deposited out of past savings and salary income. There was also income in the hands of his wife which she earned from her source of tuition and beauty parlor work. 18. However, the learned CIT (A) rejected the submission of the assessee and concurred with the view of the AO. 19. Aggrieved by the order of learned CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us. The learned AR before us submitted that the cash deposited in the bank account is representing the sale proceeds of the immovable property. Therefore the same should be considered as part of the sale consideration and accordingly the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we conclude that there is no merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. 23.5 In this regard we find support guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprise (1994) 210 ITR 103 (Cal) at page 111:- It was true that 'R' had proved to be a shifty person as a witness. At the earlier stages, he claimed all his sales to be genuine but before the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee, he disowned the sales specifically made to the assessee. This statement could at the worst show that 'R' was not a trustworthy witness and little value could be attached to what he stated either in his affidavits or in his examination by the Assessing Officer. His conduct neutralized his value as a witness. A man indulging in double-speaking cannot be said by any means a truthful man at any stage-and no court can decide on which occasion he was truthful. 23.6 In view of the above we reject the plea of the assessee and accordingly find no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower authorities. 24. The assessee in his support relied on this tribunal order in case of Dine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
