9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investments/ purchases/ expenditure were made in the financial year 1997-98 relevant to assessment year 1998-99 except amount declared under VDIS 97 on 26.12.1997. Assessee already tried to establish the fact that these investments were pertaining to previous assessments years 1991-92 to 1997-98. Hence, in our view addition made in the assessment year 1998- 1999 cannot be sustained and accordingly, we delete the addition. This issue of the assessee is allowed. Assessment of income from house property - ALV determination - CIT(A) has given directions to the assessee as well as the AO to adopt annual letting value on the basis of Municipal valuation adopted by Chennai Corporation for rising the rental value - HELD THAT:- We find no infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and further direct the AO to adopt the municipal value adopted by Chennai Corporation for assessing rental value. This issue raised by the assessee is dismissed as per above direction. Charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C - We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to charge interest as per the provisions of the Act. This issue raised by the assessee stands dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,50,10,000/- offered under VDIS 1997 as the undisclosed income for the assessment year 1998-99 and further the amount of tax paid under VDIS 97 for Rs. 47,73,185/- on 31.03.1998 was not given credit to. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 19.10.2006 had directed the Assessing Officer to give credit of Rs. 47,73,185/- under payment of tax following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemalatha Gargya vs. CIT Another, 259 ITR 1. Aggrieved, against the order of the ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide its order in ITA No.55/Mds/2007 CO No.20/Md/2007 dated 10.12.2008 remand the matter back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer on the issue of substance of addition of Rs. 1,50,10,000/- added by the ld. AO being the amount declared in VDIS, 1997 and not accepted by the Department. The Tribunal set aside the issue vide para 15 of its order as under:- 15. The Commissioner(Appeals) noticed that though the disclosure was the assessment year 1998-99, the income pertained to the assessment 1980-8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt and statement of affairs disclosed in the VDIS 97 as on 31.03.1998 is declared or disclosed in any prior assessment year including assessment year 1997-98. But assessee miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof that assets were declared prior to 1998-99. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition and the relevant paras 10.9 to 12 reads as under:- 10.9 The assessee despite ample opportunities in the assessment and appeal proceedings failed to furnish any evidence that the credit of Rs. 1,50,10,000/- appearing in the capital account of the Statement of affairs as at 31.03.1998 had been disclosed in any assessment year prior including A.Y. 1997-98. It is also the submission of the assessee that the capital account would not reflect this amount prior to the date of declaration of VDIS'97 (since deemed void). Thus, the assessee has failed to discharge his burden of proof with regard to the source of the amount credited during the year relevant to A.Y. 1998-99. 10.10. An assessee can discharge his burden of proof by proving three things: Identity of the creditor, capacity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction in question. These three things w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... building at Valliammai Nagar, Valasarawakkam, Chennai -87 3,00,000 1990-91 1991-92 Construction of office building at 2 3, Veerasamy street, West Mambalam, Chennai-33 6,00,000 -do- -do- Construction of hospital extension at No.68, Tambiah Road, West Mambalam, Chennai-33 6,00,000 -do- -do- Construction of building at Valliammai Nagar, Valasarawakkam, Chennai -87 4,00,000 1991-92 1992-93 Construction of office building at 2 3, Veerasamy street, West Mambalam, Chennai-33 5,00,000 -do- -do- Construction of hospital extension at No.68, Tambiah Road, West Mambalam, Chennai-33 2,00,000 -do- -do- Construction of building at Valliammai Nagar, Valasarawakkam, Chennai -87 4,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was not at all explained. As per the ld. CIT(A) assessee has not at all explained these investments/purchases/ expenditures. He noted that credit of Rs. 1,50,10,000/- is made for the first time in the capital account forming part of the statement of affairs as an 31.03.1998 represented in the books of accounts of the assessee in the financial year 1997-98 relevant to assessment year 1998-1999. 7. From the above, it is noted that assessee has given a complete narration that investments / purchases/expenditures were incurred from assessment years 1991-92 to 1997-98 amounting to Rs. 1,50,10,000/-. As pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that clarifications on VDIS 1997 vide question No.9 has clarified that the amount declared can be credited in the books of accounts or if there is no books of accounts in some other record, the year of credit is left to the declarant s option. This question to No.9 and answer reads as under:- Question No. 9: Whether under the VDIS, 1997, it is mandatory to credit the amount declared in the books of accounts, if so, in which year s books of account it has to be credited - Whether the Assessment Year in respect of which it is declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry evidence before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 17.12.2009, wherein he has furnished documents pertaining to expenditures, investments and purchases which resulted in the declaration made in the VDIS on 26.12.1997. 8. We have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The fact that VDIS-97 of the assessee was not considered due to the fact that payment was made beyond the time limit prescribed under the scheme. Question in addition of the investment would arise the year of liability is to be determined included investments/purchases/ expenditure for the financial year 1997-98 relevant to assessment year 1998-99 for invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. We noted from the facts of the case that none of the authorities below have brought out anywhere in the orders that the investments are made in financial year 1997-98 relevant to assessment year 1998-99, whereas assessee has tried to establish the fact that the investments related to earlier assessment years i.e from 1991-92 to 1997-98. We do not agree with the findings of the lower authorities that investments/ purchases/ expenditure were made in the financial year 1997-98 relevant to assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
