9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of property. Partial submissions were made on behalf of the assessee and adjournment was sought to make the remaining submission but remained noncompliant subsequently. Ld. AO accordingly completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, after making various additions at Rs. 6,60,68,133/- and computing assessed income at Rs. 6,72,67,543/- in the following manner:- 16. With the above remarks the income of the assessee is assessed as under:- Income as per return Rs. 11,99,410/ Add: Addition on account of undisclosed investment in purchase of property as per para 13:- 6,26,17,800/- A.Property purchase at Race course Road 4,75,38,000/- B.Agri. Land Purchased at Gram Nipania 96,00,000/- C. Registry expenses for the purchase of 54,79,800/- Above mentioned properties Total: 6,26,17,800/- Addition on account of undisclosed capital gain as per para 14 Rs. 16,50,333/- Addition on account of unexplained cash deposit as per Para 15 Rs. 18,00,000/- Total Income Rs. 6,72,67,543/- 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Assessee filed additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were admitted by the ld. CIT(A) in contravention to Rule 46An of the Income Tax Rules. We find that the additional evidences were filed before the ld. CIT(A). All these evidences were forwarded to the ld. AO and remand report was called for. Ld. DR has himself submitted the copy of remand report dated 07.01.2015 wherein for each of the issues raised before the ld. CIT(A) remand report has been furnished. We, therefore, find no merit in this ground raised by the revenue and the same is dismissed. 9. Apropos to ground no.2 relating to addition of Rs. 4,75,38,000/- contention of the assessee before Lower authorities is that this amount pertains to purchase consideration paid by partnership firm M/s Anil Enterprises for purchase of land and all the payments have been made through account payee cheque, therefore, the addition was wrongly made in the hands of assessee. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt this issue in detail in the impugned order deleting the addition observing as follows:- Ground no.3 6. This ground of appeal is related to addition of Rs. 4,75,38,OO0/-on account of alleged undisclosed investment made. I have gone through the assessment order, contentions of the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of appeal is allowed. 9.1 From perusal of the above finding of Ld. CIT(A) as well as the paper book filed before us, we find that there was a transaction of purchase of land carried out on 29.11.2010 and the purchase consideration along with stamp duty and other charges were Rs. 4,75,38,000/-. On perusal of the purchase deed we find that this purchase was made by a partnership firm M/s. Anil Enterprises and in the purchase deed name of two partners are mentioned namely Shri Satish Chandra Gupta and assessee Shri Rajkumar Shanbhudayal Agrawal. Though the PAN No. of both the 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. 10. Apropos to ground no.3 relating to addition of Rs. 94,00,000/- for the alleged undisclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestment made by the assessee, it is submitted that the funds have moved from the assessee's bank account which is evident from the bank statement enclosed and copy of document executed, a copy of which has also been submitted during the course of appeal hearing. Therefore the said investment stands fully disclosed. Date wise details of cheques issued for purchase of the property has been submitted which are as under:- S.No. Name Date of chq. Chq. No. Amount 1 Rajkumar Agrawal 30.05.2010 994407 of SBI 15,00,000/ - 2 Rajkumar Agrawal 06.07.2010 9944500f SBI 15,00,000/- 7.4 Thus, the share of investment of the appellant has been fully explained. As far as the addition by virtue of stamp duty valuation of the property is considered, a total amount of Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 94,00,000 / - on this ground. The AO is free to take action i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lined to agree with the appellant submission that even otherwise also the appellant's case can't be subjected to any addition on this count as the property has been purchased by partnership firm. 8.2 As regards registration expenses, in respect of purchases of agriculture land by the assessee in co-ownership with other two persons referred to in ground no.4 , it has been submitted by the appellant that all the three co-owners carry different business in different field and the appellant's share amounting to Rs. 2,87 ,000/- has been met from out of the funds available with him in his business of JCB plying and other agencies as disclosed in Return of Income. I have carefully verified 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share of this Rs. 7,50,330/ - can be added in the hands of the appellant. This share works out to Rs. 2,50, 110/- at Thus the addition on this ground in the appellant's hand is restricted Rs. 2,50, 110/-, at the same time, the AO is free to take action in the case of other two co-owners. 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 Rs. 16,50,333/-. Ld. CIT(A) gave a relief of Rs. 9,00,000/- observing that this amount has already been taxed in the return of income. Out of the balance amount of Rs. 7,50,330/-, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,50,110/- in the hands of assessee. We note that assessee had already offered Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 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 Rs. 2,50,110/- in the hands of assessee. Ld. DR did not raise any objection to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted and the appeal on this ground is allowed. 13.1 From perusal of the above finding of Ld. CIT(A) we find that submission made by the assessee contained certain mistakes and the submission in itself 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 18,00,000/-, we accept the source of alleged cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/- as explained towards the sale consideration received in cash from sale of JCB machine and Rs. 3,00,000/- being accumulated cash saving from earning of JCB machine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
