9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltural income of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 1,22,45,722/- by making the following additions: 1. Income from civil contracts - Rs. 48,87,040/- 2. Long term capital gains - Rs. 6,86,651/- 3. Unexplained cash credits - Rs. 5,71,000/- 4. Unexplained investment in the form of Promissory notes - Rs. 33,76,000/- 5. Interest income from amounts Lent - Rs. 2,76,422/- 6. Unexplained cash - Rs. 50,680/- 7. Unexplained investment in Jewellery - Rs. 12,19,714/- 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. Before us, the assessee has raised 13 grounds of appeal, out of which ground Nos. 1 to 4 & 6 are not pressed, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 6. As regards ground No. 5 and its sub-grounds (a) to (c) regarding estimation of profit, before the AO the assessee submitted that he had maintained regular books of account and got audited them u/s 44AB of the Act and since assessment was completed and refund w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54,93,210/- and the share of the assessee was at Rs. 6,86,651/-. The same was added in the hands of the assessee in the status of Individual on protective basis. The A. O. has not accepted the purchase value as per document in the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09, he has adopted the purchase value of the property at Rs. 3.5 crores, whereas, while arriving the capital gains on the sale of the part of the above property, the AO has adopted the purchase price as that of the sale deed at Rs. 1,49,00,000/- which is against the principles of natural justice. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) observed as under: 6.2) I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the assessee. The claim of development expenses is denied by the AO as the sale document does not mention anything about any development carried on by the assessee as claimed. The action of the AO is justified as the assessee has no answer to the finding of AO even during the appellate proceedings. Further, it is seen that the issue whether the land belongs to HUF or individual, is to be adjudicated in favour of 'Individual' as there is no mention about HUF status dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called for a remand report from the AO, and the AO submitted remand report, which was confronted to the assessee, against which the assessee explained his version, which was extracted by the CIT(A) in his order at page 9 & 10 of his order. 8.2 After considering the submission of the Assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing that when AO specifically asked the assessee to produce the alleged creditor for examination which could help in proving the genuineness of the transaction, the assessee failed to do so and the documents produced by the assessee may have proved the identity but not the genuineness of the transaction. He further observed that the assessee took loan from an agricultural labour itself is shrouded in mystery and do not readily appeal to common sense. 8.3 Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. On perusal of record and submissions of the assessee, the assessee could not satisfy the basic ingredients laid down in section 68 of the IT Act even though the revenue authorities provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his claim by way of documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.No. AYs Return of income Status 1. 2006-07 1,08,400 HUF 2 2007-08 2,09,100 HUF 3 2008-09 4,26,685 HUF 4 2009-10 3,88,300 HUF 5 2010-11 2,62,665 HUF Total 13,95,150 9.3 The allegation of the AO that the advances of Rs. 1,26,000/- given by the assessee that HUF had no sufficient funds to give advance, is factually incorrect, as per the above table, the HUF is filing returns regularly. Therefore, the advance of Rs. 1,26,000/-, which is a meagre amount, cannot be doubted and accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,26,000/- made in the hands of the assessee. 9.4 As regards the addition of Rs. 23,50,000/-, the AO has treated the sum of Rs. 23,50,000/- as unexplained investment. In this regard, the assessee filed books of account in which the assessee has shown payments to the parties out of his own funds generated and the books of account filed by the assessee has not been rejected by the AO. Therefore, the assessee has explained the source of payments and the books of account have also been audited qualified CA u/s 44AB of the Act. We also perused the cash book and financial statements filed by the assessee and find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot correct. The assessee has admitted the interest of Rs. 2,17,101/-. The AO has calculated the interest on the entire amount of Rs. 33,76,000/- whereas we have directed the AO to delete the additions of Rs. 9,00,000 + 1,26,000/- + 23,50,000/- on the ground that the source of the same were explained by the assessee. We have observed that the assessee has explained the source of Rs. 23,50,000/- and directed the AO to delete this addition; however, he is liable for interest income thereon only @ 24% as offered on the pro-notes as observed by the AO. Therefore, we direct the AO to recalculate the interest on Rs. 23,50,000/- . This ground is partly allowed. 11. As regards ground No. 11 and its sub-grounds (a) to (c) regarding addition of Rs. 50,680/- in respect of cash found during the search, the ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed this ground at the time of hearing, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 12. As regards ground No. 12 and its sub-grounds (a) & (b) regarding the addition of Rs. 12,19,714/- towards unexplained investment in jewellery, during the course of search, the AO noticed that the assessee had gross weight of jewellery at 751.5 grams and net weight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
