9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rket Value of the property. In the present case, consideration shown in the Sale Deed is more or less equivalent to guideline value of the property fixed by the Stamp Duty Authority as on the date of sale. Therefore, if you consider the arguments of the assessee in light of prevailing fact that there will be a difference between guideline value of the property and Fair Market Value of the property, then, the claim of the assessee that it has received cash consideration cannot be doubted, more particularly if you consider the location of the property - There is no error in the reasons given by the Ld.CIT(A) to accept the arguments of the assessee that it has received sale consideration for sale of property, even though, the Sale Deed shown only ₹ 2.50 Crs. and also the buyer has denied having paid any cash consideration. Hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the Revenue. Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) after taking into consideration various facts has given categorical findings that the source for cash deposit into assessee s bank account is out of distribution of assets by HUF and thus, there is no reason to the AO to disb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the HUF, is without any evidence, in as much as the cash portion, if any, was not deposited in the HUF's bank account, instead the same was deposited in the coparcener's bank accounts after a gap of six months, and the same cannot be telescoped against the sale consideration. 5. The CIT(A) erred in modifying the addition made under the head income from unexplained sources to Lon^ Term Capital gains , without appreciating the fact that the partition document produced by the assessee is only a self-serving document, and mere tallying of receipt of cash, coparcener's shares would not amount to actual receipt of sums, unless proved otherwise by means of Account payee cheques etc. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the ld.CIT(A) may be set-aside, and that of the Assessing Officer is restored. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s.A P Sridhar (HUF) filed its return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 02.02.2012 declaring total income of ₹ 3,83,91,594/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property by the DDIT (I CI)-II, Chennai, as per which, the purchaser had categorically denied payment of consideration in cash over and above what was specified in the Sale Deed. Therefore, the AO opined that claim of the assessee that it has received sale consideration of ₹ 7,61,82,000/- is incorrect and accordingly, re-computed the long term capital gains derived from the sale of property by taking into account sale consideration as per Sale Deed dated 01.04.2010 at ₹ 2.50 Crs and has further allowed indexed cost of acquisition and improvement of ₹ 73,94,400/- and arrived at long term capital gains at ₹ 1,76,05,600/-. In so far as deduction claimed u/s.54 54EC of the Act, the AO has denied the exemption claimed by the assessee on two grounds by observing that the assessee has not made total consideration received from transfer of property on or before due date for filing of return of income u/s.139(1) to be eligible for claiming exemption u/s.54 of the Act. The AO had also rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee (HUF) was having one property and after sale of said property, the partition of HUF taken place and further, after distribution of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous facts, deleted the addition made by the AO towards income from unexplained sources amounting to ₹ 5,11,82,000/- by holding that although, the registered document shows payment of consideration of ₹ 2.50 Crs. only, but other circumstantial evidences including location of the property and the Fair Market Value as on the date of sale, clearly indicate that the claim of the assessee that it has sold the property for consideration of ₹ 7,61,82,000/- appears to be correct and acceptable. Therefore, rejected the reasons given by the AO and directed the AO to adopt sale consideration of ₹ 7,61,82,000/- for computation of long term capital gains derived from transfer of property. As regards, disallowance of deduction u/s.54 of the Act towards re-investment of sale consideration in another residential flat, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the arguments of the assessee and sustained the additions made by the AO by observing that once final partition of HUF took place, the HUF ceased to exist and thus, post distribution of assets among the members, the question of existence of HUF, cannot be considered. Accordingly, investment made by the assessee in another residential hous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld.CIT(A), submitted that except a piece of immovable property at Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai, the assessee does not own any other property or carried out any business to generate such a huge cash to be treated as unexplained income and thus, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that the claim of the assessee that it has received sale consideration of ₹ 7,61,82,000/- to be accepted. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee itself has voluntarily offered sale consideration of ₹ 7,61,82,000/- and computed long term capital gains after claiming certain deductions. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the AO to allege that the consideration received for transfer of property is income from unexplained source, that too without any evidence to prove that the assessee is having income from undisclosed sources. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering necessary facts has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO and his order should be upheld. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The facts borne out from records indicate that the HUF had owned one property at Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee claims that it has received sale consideration in cash amounting to ₹ 5,11,82,000/- from transfer of property which is although not supported by documentary evidences, but circumstantial evidences clearly show that there is every possibility of generating income from that source. Therefore, when the assessee has claimed that it has received sale consideration in cash for transfer of property, it is for the AO to disprove the claim of the assessee with cogent reason and sufficient evidences. In this case, the AO has simply gone on the basis of Sale Deed executed by the assessee and also statement of the buyer of the property. It is accepted but not admitted fact that there is a vast difference between guideline value of the property and market value of the property and the guideline value of the property not necessarily be Fair Market Value of the property. In the present case, consideration shown in the Sale Deed is more or less equivalent to guideline value of the property fixed by the Stamp Duty Authority as on the date of sale. Therefore, if you consider the arguments of the assessee in light of prevailing fact that there will be a difference between guideline val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the imagination of any sorts. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing in allowing the unexplained cash deposits found in the assessee's bank accounts, without appreciating fact that the partition document produced by the assessee is only a self-serving document, and mere tallying of co-partner's shares would not amount to actual receipt of sums, unless proved otherwise by means of Account payee cheques etc. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the ld.CIT(A) may be set-aside, and that of the Assessing Officer is restored. 13. The facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the facts and issues which we had considered in ITA No.2735/Chny/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 in the case of M/s. A P Sridhar (HUF). The assessee had deposited cash into her bank account and explained that source for cash deposit was out of distribution of assets by M/s. A P Sridhar (HUF) from sale consideration received for sale of property. The AO has not accepted the claim of M/s. A P Sridhar (HUF) and accordingly, excess consideration over and above what was shown in the Sale Deed has been treate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
