9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e us, the ld.DR could not able to produce any contrary view or evidence on the deletion made by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that deletion made by the CIT(A) does not require any interference and grounds raised by the Revenue are hereby rejected. Consequently, cross objection filed by the assessee being in support of the order of the ld.CIT(A), becomes infructuous, and disposed off accordingly. - ITA No.744/Ahd/2018 With Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2022 - S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap, Vice President And T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Revenue : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR For the Assessee : Shri Karan shah, AR ORDER PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [for short Ld. CIT(A)] relating to the Asst. Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross objection filed by the assessee has a delay of 111 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating that he was away from USA during the period 12.5.2019 and 05.07.2019 when Form No.36 filed by the Revenue was served on him at his address. The F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also reply to the remand report from the assessee. The same are as follow: I. UNEXPLAINED ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. 1961 - RS. 2,48 75,684/- 1. The Ld. A.O has made an observation in Para 1 of the Remand Report made an observation as under:- From the evidences submitted before the Id. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and fresh evidences produced, the assessee has received the said amount through banking channel and purchased the land. The property has been purchased by the assessee's partner and the payment has been routed through the partners account to follow the rules of Revenue department of state to purchase the land as Khedut as stated by the assessee. However case may be finalized on merits . The Ld. A.O. after verifying additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule, 1962 such as copy of return of acknowledgement of Return of various parties, copy of Bank statement, audited balance sheet of the M.T. Corporation at the time of remand proceedings accepted the contention of the appellant in respect of genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties from whom appellant had received unsecured loans during the year under co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were actually cash on hand and there is no strong documentary evidence thereof. Since the assessee has no source of cash in his return of income and further he is only salaried employee, Therefore the cash deposits amounting Rs. 1,60,000/- is completely unexplained cash deposits. Rest amount have been routed through the banking channel and duly reflected in the bank statement. However the case may be finalized on the merits . 2. The Ld. A.O. after verifying additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A of the IT. Rule, 1962, at the time of remand proceedings accepted the contention of the appellant in respect of genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties from whom appellant had received unsecured loans during the year under consideration. The Ld. A.O. in his remand report has accepted the contention of the appellant and has not made any adverse comment in his remand report on account of unexplained credit entries in Kalupur Commercial Co. Op. Bank of Rs.98,70,452/- except cash deposits of Rs. 1,60,000/- for which appellant has to state that the said deposits have been made by the appellant from the cash available on hand and its savings. Further, the appellant has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtnership deed and it is shown as purchase of land under the head Stock in Trade in the Balance Sheet of the firm M/s. Monarch Infra Venture. The copy of ledger account of land purchased of different survey Nos. from the books of the firm M/s. Monarch Infra Venture has already been submitted as per Exhibit-Ill vide reply dated 20.12.2016. During the A.Y. 2011-12 the case of the M/s. Monarch Infra Ventures was selected for scrutiny assessment and the Ld. A.O. has issued various notices u/s.142 (1) of the Act and in response to the same the firm submitted all the details and after verifying all the details the Ld. A.O. had passed the order u/s. 143(3) of the IT. Act dated 21.03.2014. The copy of the assessment order of M/s. Monarch Infra Ventures for the A.Y. 2011-12 along with the copy of the balance sheet, profit Loss account and partners' capital account for A.Y. 2011-12 are attached herewith as per Exhibit -VII of synopsis of arguments which has also been accepted by the Ld. A.O. as an additional evidence at the time of remand proceedings. In view of the aforesaid facts and submission, the addition made by the ld.AO of Rs.1,36,22,699/- u/s.69 of the IT Act as unexpla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtner farmers representative of the firm and that-no interest or rights shall arise to their legal heirs. 4.3.3 On a perusal of all the documents and submissions made, it is clear that the appellant made the investment in property in his capacity as a partner of the firm MIV and that all the funds were made available by the firm and routed through banking channels. In his remand report, the AO had only disagreed with an amount of Rs.1.60,000/- deposited in cash in the appellant's bank account stating that the same is unexplained. However, it is seen from the submissions made by the appellant that the said deposits have been made by the appellant from cash available in hand with him. In view of the detailed discussion above, the addition of Rs.4,85,90,715/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. 7. Aggrieved against the same, the Revenue is before us by raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of unexplained investment u/s 69A of Rs. 2,48,75,684/- for credit entries in the bank account with HDFC Bank. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion offered by the assessee. Considering the above explanation, the ld.CIT(A) deleted addition under section 69C which also does require any interference. 10. Regarding unexplained investment of Rs.1,36,22,699/-, the AO after verifying the additional evidences submitted under the Rule 46A of the ITAT Rules, such as copy of partnership deed, memorandum of understanding between the firm and the partners at the time of assessment proceedings accepted the contentions of the assessee. The assessee along with other three farmer partners have acquired different survey numbers of land situated at Mouje Gam Mulsana, Sub-Dist-Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar in the names of co-partners out of funds of Monarch Infra Venture for an on behalf of the firm as a farmer partner in a fiduciary capacity in terms of the partnership deed and it was also shown in the balance sheet under the head stock-in-trade of the firm, Monarch Infra Venture. Further, the partnership firm, Monarch Infra Venture s regular assessment u/s.143(3) has been completed on 21.3.2014, wherein the above properties have been reflected in the copy of the balance sheet and profit loss account and partners capital account of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
