9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exemption provisions should the construed strictly. Thus, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by the appellant for claiming deduction u/s 54B. Deduction u/s 54F - appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of the construction of residential property except making a bald submission - HELD THAT:- Further from the submission made by the appellant, it is clear that entire money was spent on the construction subsequent to the date of filing of the return of income and the assessee had not deposited unutilized portion of the consideration in capital gain scheme as provided under the provisions of section 54F - Thus, the submissions made by the assessee are not supported by any evidence and devoid of any merits. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal no.2 filed by the assessee. Hence, ground of appeal no.2 stands dismissed. Addition of cash deposits in bank account - HELD THAT:- In the present case, on mere perusal of the assessment order, it would suggest that the appellant had failed to offer any explanation whatsoever before the AO. It was only during the course of proceedings before the CIT(A), the appellant took a plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 58 days in filing the present appeal. The legal heir of the appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay by citing that the delay occurred on account of fact that the appellant was staying at Ahmednagar and he took some time to identify the counsel/tax consultant to file the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Pune. There was no mala- fide and deliberate intention on the part of the appellant in filing the present appeal with delay. 3. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection for condonation of delay. 4. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the leaned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciation the fact the land sold in respect of which long term capital gain has arisen belonged to Hindu Undivided Family and hence the said LT Gain should not have been assessed in hands of appellant in status of Individual. 2. On the facts and in the circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re based on the ready reckoner valuation, where the land was situated and, accordingly, computed the long term capital gains of Rs.23,28,075/-. The appellant also failed to offered any explanation in support of the source of cash deposits of balance of Rs.28,42,000/-. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer had brought to tax the capital gains of Rs.17,59,750/- and also a sum of Rs.28,42,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The Assessing Officer also denied the claim for exemption u/s 54B on the ground that new agricultural lands were bought in the name of son and daughter-in-law at Gat No.248 and Gat No.143. As regards the claim for deduction of construction, the same was also denied on the ground that it was utilized for the purpose of commercial building. 7. Being aggrieved by the above order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the addition on the ground that the assessee had failed to offer any convincing explanation as to source of deposits. Similarly, the addition on account of capital gains was also confirmed. 8. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. Date Amount (Rs.) 1 10-05-2012 60,000/- 2 30-05-2012 1,00,000/- 3 26-06-2012 1,00,000/- 4 31-07-2012 1,00,000/- 5 18-09-2012 1,00,000/- 6 03-11-2012 1,00,000/- 7 03-04-2012 4,00,000/- Total 9,60,000/- 13. Therefore, the appellant also sought the claim for deduction u/s 54B of the Act. 14. We have carefully gone through the submissions made by the appellant. We are not inclined to accept the claim for the following reasons :- (i) No claim for deduction u/s 54B or 54F was made in the return of income filed by the appellant. (ii) Admittedly, new agricultural lands were purchased in the name of the assessee in view of the authoritative pronou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs, the Assessing Officer found that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.47,50,000/- in the bank account. The Assessing Officer had called upon the appellant to explain the source for said cash deposits. The appellant had failed to offer any convincing or plausible explanation. The Assessing Officer taking into consideration that the appellant had sold the property/agricultural land for consideration of Rs.28,08,000/- which had been received in cash, had treated the cash deposits to the extent of Rs.28,08,000/- as explained and brought to tax the balance amount. Even on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), argument advanced before the ld. CIT(A) is that the cash deposits were made out of the past income without leading any proof in support of this contention. The ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT, 49 ITR 112 (SC) and Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC) had confirmed the addition. 18. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present ground of appeal no.3. 19. During the course of hearing of appeal, the ld. AR submits that the actual sale consideration on sale of agricultu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusive, unless and otherwise there is a material on record showing consideration was paid over and above stated consideration, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd., 159 ITR 71 (SC) and also in view of the provisions of Registration Act. Thus, the explanation offered before us during the course of hearing of appeal is not tenable in the eyes of law as it is a mere bald submission without bringing any material on record in support of submission. 23. As regards to the other contentions of the appellant that the Assessing Officer without discharging the onus of proving the source from which the investments and cash deposits were made, had chosen to make addition. This submission is contrary to the well settled position of law that no burden lies on the Revenue to show the income is received from any particulars source before invoking the provisions of section 68/69 as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC), CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar, 53 ITR 623 (SC) and A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC). In view of the well settled pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
