9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No.2268/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2018 - Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr.D.R. For the Respondent : Shri Rajesh M. Upadhyaya, A.R. ORDER PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the revenue is against the order dated 20.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Surat [Ld. CIT(A) in short] for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arising out of the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 26.03.2013 passed by the ITO, Ward - 6(3), Surat with the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of undisclosed income deposited/credited in undisclosed three bank accounts to the tune of ₹ 72,75,116/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in relying on the submission of the assessee which was not made available before the AO., in contravention of Rule 46A, without even remanding it to the AO. 3. Without p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to explain the source of FDRs lying with Sydicate Bank amounting to ₹ 49,000/- and ₹ 6,00,000/-. In reply to the said notice, the assessee explained that the agricultural land located at Village Hazira was sold by HUF of assessee and the sum of ₹ 24,24,148/- so received was deposited in the said account of Sydicate Bank. Subsequently, a FD of ₹ 24,00,000/- was made by withdrawing the same from the said account, which was again enchased and re-deposited. It was the case of the assessee that all the three Bank accounts belong to HUF which was disclosed in the Books of account of the said HUF and recording of those accounts were also done therein. Further that, the deposit regarding FDs to the tune of ₹ 49,000/- since reflected in the books of accounts of the HUF, the same are also explained by the assessee. 3. The Learned AO came to a finding, the land which was claimed to have been sold by the assessee or acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer was belonged to four coowners including the assessee and not the HUF of assessee. Further that, the Bank accounts also relate to the assessee as individual and not as karta of HUF, which is evident from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking into account of three Bank accounts computed at ₹ 37,14,938/-. Such peak balance is covered by the amounts of compensation received by the assessee as also submitted by him. Since each and every credit entry was duly explained by the assessee the same cannot be treated as unexplained in terms of Section 68/69 of the Act and in the event, the accounts is unexplained then the peak credit can be added to the total of the assessee as submitted by the Learned AR at the time of hearing of the matter before us. He further urged that since all the credit entries in all the three Bank accounts have been duly explained by the assessee including the source of each and every credit entry made therein no addition, whatsoever is permissible. Further that, the compensation amounts so received by the assessee has already been taxed during the assessment proceeding for A.Y. 2009-10 and therefore addition on the same accounts in the year under consideration would be nothing but double taxation, which is either not permissible in law. The copy of the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 has also been submitted by the Learned AR before us. On the other hand, Learned DR relied upon the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,24,800/- 03.09.2009 Babubhai N. Patel 65,410/- 29.10.2009 Union Bank FD (30/6) 1,01,729/- 29.10.2009 Union Bank FD (30/6) 1,01,729/- 29.10.2009 Union Bank FD (30/6) 1,01,729/- 02.02.2010 Sb a/c interest 4,135/- On the basis of such calculation while concluding the order in favour of the assessee the Learned CIT(A) observed as follows: Since the appellant has explained the source of credit entries as above, no question arises for treating them unaccounted or, for that matter, making additions. The source of deposits explained by appellant has not been challenged by AO also. He has simply taken into account all the credit entries of three bank accounts and totaled them as unexplained sum of money. He has not gone on each and every entry to establish that they are unexplained. He has summarily taken into account the whole of the bank account as unexpl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of appellant for A.Y. 2009-10 clearly reflects that the amount of ₹ 24,80,354/- received through cheque no.79254 dated 06.10.2008 on account of compensation against land acquisition has been taxed by AO while finalizing the order. Similarly, in the assessment order under consideration, as mentioned above, Long Term Capital Gain has been worked out on the sale consideration of ₹ 17,49,954/- on account of acquisition of land. Since both the amounts have already been considered by AO, again making addition of those amounts would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible as per law. 5.3 In view of above discussion, it is held that the source of credit entries of ₹ 72,75,116/- is explained, therefore, there is no justification to addition made by AO of that amount. However, in respect of source of investment in FD amounting to ₹ 49,000/-, neither during assessment proceedings nor appellate proceedings, appellant has submitted or explained anything, therefore, it is held that the addition made by AO is justified and deserves to be sustained. Similarly, nothing has been explained or submitted by appellant regarding disclosure of interest amounts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
