9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the "Act"), passed by the Income-tax Officer Ward-39(3), New Delhi (hereinafter referred in short as "Ld. AO"). 2. The assessee, an individual, is running a concern in the name and style of M/s Prithvi Sales Corporation and is engaged in the business of acquiring plots, constructing flats on the same as per the permission granted by local authorities and then their sale to the prospective buyers in the area of Ghaziabad. Return declaring income of Rs. 6,89,560/- was filed by the assessee and the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to examine the source of expenditure/ investment including information from AIR and to examine the source of cash deposits in the savings bank account. 2.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned appellate authority is arbitrary and against law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX has wrongly, arbitrarily against the law and without appreciating the facts/evidence filed in the case based on the consideration of standard cost of construction, confirmed addition of Rs. 22,54,805/- on account of excessive cost of construction claimed, even though approved valuer's report/other evidence was filed in support of the cost of the construction claimed. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX has wrongly, arbitrarily against the law and without appreciating the facts/evidence, confirmed addition of Rs. 1,29,245/- on account of low household withdrawals even though su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment Expenses 38,547/- 7. That the appellant reserves its right to withdraw, alter, amend, vary and make further additions to grounds of appeal." 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. At the time of hearing, learned AR made an endorsement on the appeal memo for not pressing ground no. 6 accordingly same is disposed not pressed.. The determination of remaining grounds as raised by the assessee is as follows. 7. In regard to Ground no. 2 it can be observed that learned CIT(Appeals) was impressed by the assessee with certain evidences in the form of Government Approved Valuer's report, certifying the cost of construction at Rs. 1290/- per sq. ft. and the construction cost as per PWD rate at Rs. 1415/- per sq. ft. This was, however, not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d opinion that house-hold expenditure on the basis of low withdrawals for an individual have to be considered in the light of the family as a unit. There is no justification to take the withdrawals of the assessee alone to conclude that the same are on the lower side and presuming expenditure as to what he would be expending on the family as a unit. The addition thus made by the learned AO deserved to be deleted in the whole which ld. CIT(A) has failed to do. Accordingly, ground no. 3 is decided in favour of the assessee. 9. In regard to ground no. 4, on behalf of the assessee it was submitted that the amount paid in cash is reflected in the sale-deed, a copy of which is placed on the record from page nos. 29 to 40 of the paper book. It ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be one paid in cash as seller was new to the assessee. This shows assessee had opportunity to make payment by banking channels. 9.3 Furthermore, when assessee is not buying the plot/building for the purpose of private needs, but as part of the business activity of raising construction on the plot and selling them, the payment of Rs. 2,80,000/- cash is questionable. There is no force in the contention that as this amount is not shown in the P&L A/c and forms part of the stock, the same cannot be disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Bench is of the considered opinion that as this amount forms part of the cost of construction the same is required to be shown in the P&L A/c and justified to be made for business exigency. Thus, the Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and claimed that the cash was deposited out of cash in hand. However, the Assessing Officer on reconciliation of the cash book with the bank statement found that the source of cash deposit of Rs.5 lacs made on 04.03.2010 and Rs.8 lacs made on 20.11.2009 were not furnished. Inspite of repeated opportunities the assessee did not file any explanation in regard to the source of the cash deposits made with HDFC Bank. The Assessing Officer therefore made an addition of Rs. 13 lacs. In appeal, the appellant claimed that the amount was out of cash balance available in the cash book from earlier withdrawal made from the bank account. It was claimed that the copy of the cash books and the relevant bank statement were enclosed. However, the cash book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
