9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partners is mentioned but the documents clearly shows that purchase has been made in the name of M/s Anil Enterprises. Before us Ld. DR failed to controvert this fact. We, therefore, find no inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the impugned addition by observing that the alleged sum is a purchase consideration paid by separate entity to purchase immovable property in its name for which no addition was called for in the hands of assessee. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Undisclosed investment in the purchase of agricultural land in the hands of assessee - HELD THAT:- There was transaction of purchase of agricultural land by three persons. Assessee is one of the co-owners and he has paid the purchase consideration by cheque and the source of this investment is though banking channel in the bank account placed on record supporting this fact. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) giving relief . We, thus dismiss revenue s ground. Addition towards registry expenses - CIT - A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition since it pertains to the purchase of land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the interest of justice, are of the considered view that against the alleged cash deposit of ₹ 18,00,000/-, we accept the source of alleged cash deposit to the extent of ₹ 11,00,000/- as explained towards the sale consideration received in cash from sale of JCB machine and ₹ 3,00,000/- being accumulated cash saving from earning of JCB machine and other income and accordingly hold that the assessee has successfully explained the source of cash to the extent of ₹ 14,00,000/- as against the addition made at ₹ 18,00,000/- and therefore addition of ₹ 4,00,000/- is sustained in the hands of assessee. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ITA No.148/Ind/2017 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2021 - Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'ble Vice President And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri Rajeeb Jain, CIT-DR For the Respondent : S/Shri C.P. Rawka Veenus Rawka, CAs ORDER PER MANISH BORAD: The above captioned appeal at the instance of Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, (in short CIT(A) ), Indore dated 25.11.2016 which is arising out of the order u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as well as reply/submission filed by the assessee partly allowed the assessee s appeal. 4. Now the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising following grounds: 1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT (A) erred in deciding the issues relying on additional evidences without even admitting them as per Rule 46A and deleting the various additions 1 disallowances made by AO. 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting addition of ₹ 4,75,38,000/- ignoring the findings in the assessment order and remand report also not verifying the source of investment made by the assessee. 3.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting addition of ₹ 94,00,000/- ignoring the findings in the assessment order and remand report also not verifying the source of investment made by the assessee. 4.Whether Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the sum of ₹ 54,79,800/- which was incurred for purchasing properties at Race Course Road, Nipania ignoring the findings in the assessment order, remand report and without verifying the source of expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contentions of the AO for making the addition, remand report, counter comments on the remand report and the material available on record. The appellant has pleaded that the addition of ₹ 4, 75,38,000/ - on account of alleged undisclosed investment made in the hands of the assessee is arbitrary as the property was purchased by a firm which is a separate entity and not by the assessee as individual and hence the addition so made without considering the facts and material on record deserves to be deleted. As per the appellant submission, the property was purchased by the firm M/s Anil Enterprises in which appellant was one of the partners. In his support, he filed the purchase deed and partnership deed of the said firm Mils Anil Enterprises and its audit report for F.Y. 2010-11. 6.1 The submissions made by the appellant are reproduced as below:- The property has been purchased by a partnership firm M/s Anil Enterprises and deed has been executed by the Assessee in the capacity of a partner along with other partner Shri Satish Chandra Gupta.. This aspect has been duly reflected in the title deed. The Ld AO has assessed, the investment in the hands of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of ₹ 94,00,000/- for the alleged undisclosed investment in the purchase of agricultural land in the hands of assessee, we find that Ld. AO made the addition for undisclosed investment of ₹ 96,00,000/- and when the matter came up before the ld. CIT(A) complete details of purchase of this agricultural land was filed and duly examined by the ld. CIT(A) who observed that the said agricultural land was purchased by three persons including the assessee and the share of assessee is 1/3rd. Ld. CIT(A) has dealt this issue giving following finding: This ground of appeal is related to addition of ₹ 96,00,000 / - a/ c of undisclosed investment in purchase of Agricultural land in the hands of appellant. I have carefully gone through the assessment order, contentions of the AO for making the addition, remand report, counter comments on the remand report and the material available on record. 7.1 The appellant has purchased agriculture land in co- ownership with Smt. Vimlabai Agrawal and Shambhudayal Agrawal which is evident from title deed as on 05/06/2010 submitted during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appeal proceedings. 7.2 It has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 6,00,000/ - is to be added equally in the hands of all the three co-owners. Thus, as far as the appellant is concerned the addition on this amount is restricted to ₹ 2,00,000/- Which is his share of the additional stamp duty valuation in the property in proportion to the share he enjoys in the property. Thus, the appellant gets a relief of ₹ 94,00,000 / - on this ground. The AO is free to take action in the case of other two co- owners namely Smt. Vimla Bai Agrawal and Shri Shambhudayal Agrawal for adding the additional stamp duty valuation of the property so purchased. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 10.1 From perusal of above finding we find that there was transaction of purchase of agricultural land by three persons. Assessee is one of the co-owners and he has paid the purchase consideration by cheque totalling to ₹ 30,00,000/- and the source of this investment is though banking channel in the bank account placed on record supporting this fact. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) giving relief of ₹ 94,00,000/-. We, thus dismiss revenue s ground no.3. 11. Apropos to ground no.4 relates to the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied all the facts stated by the appellant and also examined the documents including the return of income so produced. After a detailed and through verification, I have reached to the conclusion that the registry expenses pertaining to the property belonging to the firm the source of which has incidentally been also explained cannot be added in the hands of the appellant. Further, as far as the registration expenses of the other property is concerned, as the share in the hands of the appellant stands explained; the same can also not be added in the appellant's hand. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed and the addition is deleted in full. 11.1 From perusal of the above finding and also in view of our finding while dealing as ground no.2 3 of the instant appeal, we find that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 46,95,800/-, since it pertains to the purchase of land by a separate entity i.e. partnership firm M/s Anil Enterprises and similarly for the remaining sum of ₹ 7,84,000/- also the addition is rightly deleted as the assessee is only 1/3rd owner of the agricultural land purchased and the sum of ₹ 7,84,000/- is a total amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wners. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 12.1 From perusal of the finding of Ld. CIT(A) as well as observations made by the lower authorities, we find that agricultural land purchased in the co-ownership of three persons including the assessee was sold during the year. Assessee is liable to pay tax only on his share of income. Ld. AO made the addition of ₹ 16,50,333/-. Ld. CIT(A) gave a relief of ₹ 9,00,000/- observing that this amount has already been taxed in the return of income. Out of the balance amount of ₹ 7,50,330/-, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 2,50,110/- in the hands of assessee. We note that assessee had already offered Short Term Capital Gain of ₹ 9,00,000/- in its return of income being 1/3rd share of the property sold during the year. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of ₹ 2,50,110/- in the hands of assessee. Ld. DR did not raise any objection to this contention that ₹ 9,00,000/- has been offered by the assessee in the return of income. We, therefore, find no inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly confirm the same. Thus ground no.5 raised by the revenue is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not sufficient enough to explain the source of cash deposit in bank. In the submission firstly it is stated that JCB machine was sold to Shri Ram Singh for consideration of ₹ 11,00,000/-. Thereafter during the proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) assessee has claimed to have filed a sale letter towards sale of JCB machine against a consideration of ₹ 16,00,000/-. Both submission of the assessee are contradictory. The instant appeal relates to A.Y. 2011-12 and almost 10 years have passed since then. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case and to put an end to the litigation, being fair to both the parties and in the interest of justice, are of the considered view that against the alleged cash deposit of ₹ 18,00,000/-, we accept the source of alleged cash deposit to the extent of ₹ 11,00,000/- as explained towards the sale consideration received in cash from sale of JCB machine and ₹ 3,00,000/- being accumulated cash saving from earning of JCB machine and other income and accordingly hold that the assessee has successfully explained the source of cash to the extent of ₹ 14,00,000/- as against the addition made at ₹ 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
