9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said documents were filed during remand proceedings also to AO vide submissions dated 23/05/2015 and therefore, there was no violation of Rule 46A as urged by the revenue in grounds of appeal. The perusal of these documents clearly established the assessee s claim u/s 54F. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order, in this regard. Ground No.1 stands dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- So far as the addition it emerges that except for third party documents / evidences, there is nothing on record which corroborates the fact that any such unaccounted money flowed to the assessee in cash. The assessee denied having received any such money and therefore, the onus had shifted on revenue to dislodge the assessee s claim. As rightly noted by CIT(A), no further investigation /inquiry has been conducted by Ld.AO to contradict the assessee s claim. The opportunity to cross-examine the persons has never been provided to the assessee and the assessee was directed to prove the negative i.e. that he did not receive any unaccounted money. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order on this issue. Ground No. 2 stand dismissed. - I.T.A. No.721/Mum/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deal at Dronagiri. 2.2 Accordingly, the case was re-opened by issuance of notice u/s. 148 on 28/08/2012, in response to which the assessee submitted that the assessee was 73 years old and his income was below taxable limit and therefore, no return was filed for impugned AY. Notices u/s 142(1) 143(2) were issued to the assessee in due course calling for requisite information / details. 2.3 The assessee submitted hard copy of return disclosing interest income of ₹ 1.75 Lacs. Upon perusal of information, it transpired that the assessee s mother Srimati Anandibai Narayan Kathe died on 03/01/1996 leaving behind assessee and others as legal heirs. She was holding land being described as 12.5% Goathan at Nagaon and by virtue of government acquisition of land, she was allotted plot admeasuring 2000 Sq. Meter at Dronagiri. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed sale agreement towards the sale of plot admeasuring 2050 Sq. meter at Dronagiri wherein the plot was stated to be sold for a consideration of 109.67 Lacs. As per the sale agreement, the legal heirs were only four persons including assessee. The assessee also produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l heirs and therefore, there was no contradiction between the sale agreement and the distribution agreement. The distribution agreements correctly listed 11 beneficiaries i.e. 7 brothers and 4 sisters. The sale proceeds were to be divided into 8 parts 7 parts for each of the brother and 1 part for the benefit of 4 sisters. The perusal of assessee s bank statement established that the amount mentioned against each beneficiary in the distribution agreement was debited in the passbook of the bank account opened by the assessee in joint names for the purpose of distribution among the legal heirs / beneficiaries. Keeping in view the entirety of documentary evidences, Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee received only an amount of ₹ 16.42 Lacs out of sale proceeds and the balance belonged to other beneficiaries /legal heirs. Resultantly, the balance addition of ₹ 93.25 Lacs was deleted. 3.2 The deduction u/s 54F was allowed by observing as under: - 8.1. The appellant in his submission has stated that he has paid an amount of ₹ 19,53,000/- to build a residential house at Uran. The A.O denied the claim stating that the appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the addition of ₹ 1,13,40,000/- made u/s.68 cannot be sustained and therefore it is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us contesting grant of deduction u/s 54F and deletion of addition of ₹ 113.40 Lacs u/s 68. 4. The Ld. DR supported the stand taken by Ld. AO and submitted that the assessee failed to discharge the onus that it did not receive unaccounted cash from the concerned parties. Per Contra, Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], submitted that the additions could not be sustained merely on the basis of third-party statements without bringing on record any corroborative evidences. 5.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including documents placed in the paper-book. The undisputed fact that emerges are that the stated plot of land was acquired by the assessee by way of inheritance from his mother. The documents on record has established that assessee was not the sole owner of the land under question and it was entitled for share to the extent of ₹ 16.42 Lacs only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
