9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by examining the family members. Since the assessee stated that he looks after the entire agricultural operations which is common in joint families, we, do not find any reason to suspect the source of cash deposits in the bank account and the same stands explained, hence, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition made by the AO. Assessee s appeal on this ground is allowed. Unexplained deposits in the bank account - AO found mismatch of dates mentioned in the sale deed and withdrawals made by the vendor from his bank account and disbelieved the payment to the assessee and accordingly made the addition - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the vendor has confirmed the payment of 37,50,000/- on various dates and also filed rectification deed before the Ld.CIT(A). The AO and the Ld.CIT(A) were of the view that it was an afterthought. However, the rectification deed was registered before the SRO which is a valid piece of evidence. AO landed in a wrong confusion without considering the rectification deed. In the rectified deed, the vendor has clearly mentioned that a sum of 30,75,000/- was paid on 26.12.2013 and 6,75,000/- was paid on 13.1.2014 and the bala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 28.12.2013. 3. In respect of addition of ₹ 6,75,000/- The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition both on facts and law without considering the submissions of assessee and the payee of the amounts though the payer of amount has confirmed the payment made to assessee on 13.01.2014. 4. The learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the additions of ₹ 30,75,000/- (as specified in Ground No.2) & ₹ 6,75,000/- (as specified in Ground No.4) by holding that the correction to the original sale deed is an afterthought though the appellant has been claiming an error in the original sale deed in the assessment proceedings and appeal proceedings 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 6. It is prayed that the additions may be deleted and relief be granted. 2.1. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR has raised the additional ground as follows and filed petition for admission of additional ground. The Assessing officer committed error in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act while making the addition pertaining to alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily members owned 16 acres of agricultural land, wherein the mango garden was grown. The sale proceeds of mango crop were deposited in the bank account of the assessee. All the family members are joint family and the entire agricultural operations were looked after by him. As and when the sale proceeds are received, the assessee deposits the sale proceeds in his bank account and meet the expenditure. The AO also did not suspect the agricultural receipts from mango garden, but merely with a suspicion that the assessee cannot deposit the entire sale proceeds in his account and because of reason that the assessee did not transfer the sale proceeds to the respective family members accounts made the addition, which is on assumption and presumption of the AO. The Ld.AR submitted that since the assessee takes care of the entire agricultural operations of the family members in joint family, there is no reason to suspect the source of the cash deposit. The Ld.AR further argued that the AO has not examined the family members, in spite of furnishing the details. Therefore, without examining the family members, suspecting the deposit of sale proceeds in his account and treating the same as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bank account from 26.06.2013 ranging from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 15,00,000/- as under : Date Self cash withdrawal Rs. 26.6.2013 9,00,000 4.7.2013 3,28,000 18.7.2013 1,20,000 22.7.2013 4,00,000 23.7.2013 9,60,000 14.9.2013 1,00,000 26.11.2013 1,00,000 27.11.2013 5,00,000 26.12.2013 15,00,000 Since the vendor had withdrawn the sums in small amounts and no source to make payment of ₹ 30,75,000/- on 26.12.2013, the AO disbelieved the receipt of advance on 26.12.2013 and hence made the addition. 9.1. Similarly, the AO made the addition of ₹ 6,75,000/- deposited on 13/01/2014 which was also mismatched with the sale deed. According to the AO, since, the sale deed was registered on 01/02/2014 and there was a mention in the sale deed regarding the payment at the same time, he was under the impression that the deposit made in the bank account before the date of registration was from unexplained sources and hence brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act. 10. The assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and filed confirmation from the vendor as well as rectification deed which was forwarded to the AO by the Ld.CIT(A) for his comments. The AO submitted re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - was paid on 26.12.2013 and ₹ 6,75,000/- was paid on 13.1.2014 and the balance amount was paid on date of registration. The total sum paid by the vendor to the assessee was ₹ 49,47,000/- for sale of land. The AO did not examine the vendor and made the addition brushing aside the explanation offered by the assessee. Since, the assessee has admitted the total sale consideration for capital gains and paid the taxes and furnished the evidence with regard to receipt of the amount by confirmation as well as rectification deed, we find no reason to disbelieve the contention of the assessee that a sum of ₹ 30,75,000/- was paid to the assessee on 26.12.2013 and ₹ 6,75,000/- was paid on 01.01.2014. In the instant case, though the assessee has discharged his burden, the AO did not make any enquiry and bring evidence to controvert the submission of the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition made by the AO and allow the appeal of the assessee. 14. The assessee has raised legal ground with regard to making the addition u/s 68 as invalid. Since, we have deleted the addition made by the AO and allowed the appeal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
