9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances, we are of the considered view that the Ld.AO has overstepped his jurisdiction by making an addition in the hands of the assessee by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s. 54F. We direct the Ld.AO to delete the disallowance so made. Unexplained Cash Deposits/income u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE - cash received from contract receipts is not acceptable as Assessee has not provided any confirmation or any documents/contract agreements from his clients to prove that he has undertaken and performed the contract work, nor submitted the statement of affairs of his business to support the income earned - HELD THAT:- Total cash deposited during the relevant Financial Year is Rs. 41,19,500/-. AO has made disallowance of Rs. 43,39,000/- u/s. 69A r.w. 115BBE of the act. There is a disparity in the cash deposit as per the statement filed by the assessee, scanned and reproduced hereinabove vis-a-vis the observation of the Ld.AO in para 5 of the assessment order. The summary of the total deposits provided by the assessee reveals that in Canara Bank account there is a deposit of Rs. 37 Lakhs and in State Bank of Mysore account, a sum of Rs. 4,19,500/- was deposited. Assessee has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cultural land. 2.5 The reasons of CIT(A) for rejection of admission evidence are incorrect, contrary to facts, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. Cash Deposits of Rs. 43,39,000/- treated as unexplained and invocation of provisions of Section 69A of the Act: 3.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the fact that the entire cash deposits are the results of business income earned by the Appellant and the same has been offered under the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act. Without considering the said facts, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal. That being so, the appeal proceedings be treated as void and bad in law. 3.2. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not providing any findings or operative part as to why the amount of cash deposits be added to income and the provisions of Section 69A and 115BBE be invoked. Accordingly, the said addition of Rs. 43,39,000/- be deleted and impugned order be quashed. 4. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed, or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account No.0437101020756 and Rs. 8,39,000/- in his State Bank of India account No. 64002611149 during the F.Y. 2016-17. He thus held that the source of cash remains unexplained. The Ld.AO gave benefit of the basic exemption towards non pursuit of enquiry in respect of the source of cash deposited to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs, the balance sum of Rs. 43,39,000/- was treated as unexplained income and brought to tax u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 2.9 The Ld.AO further noticed that the Assessee, in the Computation of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 claimed NIL income from Long Term Capital Gains on sale of agricultural land. The Assessee was asked to submit the documents supporting the sale of Agricultural land. The Assessee has submitted the copies of the sale deeds of the land owned by him. The same has been perused. On verification of the sale deeds, it is noticed that the Assessee has purchased land bearing Survey No.111, situated at Mylasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, on 17.06.1992 and has sold the immovable property by way of registered sale agreement dt.22.04.2016 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- where the payments received are reflected in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts of the appellant included deposits of sale proceeds of the land which are claimed to have been reinvested transaction within the 2 year window provided. 7.7 Thus AO has rightly held that the exemption u/s 54 B or 54 F was not eligible as the new asset has not been purchased within the time period allowed as per IT Act and also failed to submit the required evidences regarding the same. The AO has also allowed indexed cost of acquisition accordingly. Thus, the two addition made by the AO are affirmed as being within the purview of the IT Act and the grounds of appeal are accordingly dismissed. 2.13 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and do not require adjudication. 4. Ground no. 2: 4.1 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR argued that the notice issued u/s. 143(2) was a limited scrutiny to verify the huge cash deposits. However the subsequent notice issued by the Ld.AO dated 14.11.2019 has widened the scope of assessment without following the due process of law. He relied on the CBDT Instruction No. 7/2014 dated 26.09.2014 and submitted that the Ld.AO failed to convert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s addition so made was upheld. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5.3 The Ld.DR on the contrary, submitted that the cash has been deposited during the period when demonetisation was declared and therefore necessary verification has to be carried out in accordance with the circulars issued by the CBDT. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 5.4 Admittedly cash was deposited to the account of the assessee for which no explanation was offered by assessee regarding the source before the authorities. It was submitted that the cash deposited are business receipts in the hands of assessee. It is also submitted that, the sum was received in cash prior to the date of demonetisation. The cash receipt and payments statement has been filed by the assessee which is scanned and reproduced as under: 5.5 The total cash deposited during the relevant Financial Year is Rs. 41,19,500/-. The Ld.AO has made disallowance of Rs. 43,39,000/- u/s. 69A r.w. 115BBE of the act. There is a disparity in the cash deposit as per the statement filed by the assessee, scanned and reproduced h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
