9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income. In the instant case the assessee failed to provide any proof in support of expenses/deduction claimed by him. It is worthwhile to mention here that legislature has provided certain procedure under the Income Tax Act the assessee cannot chose to show income or expenses according to his own choice. Undoubtedly, the assessee was in receipt of income in his hands, which was voluntarily declared by him in his return of income and the deduction towards expenses claimed by him were not supported by any vouchers. It is also found that at the time of return filing there was no civil suit pending against the assessee, it was only 3 years later, when the civil suit was filed against the assessee therefore it was an afterthought to cover his mistake in return filing in the guise of civil suit, when the case was selected for scrutiny. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee is still fighting civil suit against the purchaser claiming that the amount is still due from the purchaser. Under the above facts in the circumstances of the case, we find that even after 8 years the assessee is not willing to refund the amount already received by him, at the same time does not want to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t: 1. the assessee received amount of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- on execution of the sale-deed as consenting party. As stated, he received the amount for removing the litigation regarding reservation on the land etc. 2. the possession of the land was handed over to the purchaser, 3. transfer of property was effected as per section 2(27) of the IT Act as well as 53A of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882, 4. as per the plea of the assessee that since the transfer of land was not materialized, the amount is liable to paid to the owner or the purchaser; had it been the case, the assessee should not have kept the amount with him even after 3 years of the cancellation of the transaction. Thus, it has obvious that the said amount is the income of the assessee upon which TDS was made, 5. in the ITR too it has been disclosed as income from other source i.e. commission received, 6. the assessee has claimed the entire amount as expenses; however has not furnished any evidence in support of the expenditure so incurred; in short it is a kind of future liability. 4. In view of the above, it is evident that the assessee earned income to the tune of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- by way of commission has been disclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erit in the appellant s case. As the appellant has received the said amount and as the appellant has not refunded the same inspite of passage of 6 years from the date of receipt and even though according to him the transaction has not materialized, which shows that the appellant has no intention to refund and hence, the said amount is taxable as income from other sources. As the appellant has not produced any details of the expenses incurred for removing the EWS reservation and hence the action of the AO in taxing the entire amount of receipt as income from other sources is upheld. The judicial pronouncement referred by the appellant are relating to receipt of additional consideration to the owners after fulfillment of certain conditions and hence in which year the said consideration is taxable was the issue before the tribunal. But in the instant case the appellant is not the owner and the amount actually received only has been brought to tax and Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was receivable as per the sale deed was not taxed by the AO as the same was not received by the appellant. Hence, the ratio of the decisions referred by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the appellant s ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Records, Pune with regard to the impugned property, restoring the names of earlier owners in place of Radha Bai Vitthalrao Kawade Gaurav Vitthalrao Kawade, who happens to be the transferor of the impugned property of which the assessee was the consentor. Due to this fact the names of the purchaser could not be mutated in the impugned property the purchasers were forced to file a civil suit on 18-08-2019 against the assessee being consentor the sellers. It was the contention of the counsel of the assessee that due to the civil suit filed by the purchaser the assessee might be asked by the court to refund the amount of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- already received by him. 8. With regard to the query of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- income shown similar amount claimed as expenses, under the head income from other sources , it was submitted by the counsel of the assessee that there was no income accrued to the assessee hence the same is not taxable to the assessee, but to have a proper disclosure of transaction with the income tax department, assessee took a stand to disclose the amount under the head income from other sources and equal amount also deducted from the same as no amount to be offered for ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere also furnished before the bench. In the light of these submissions, LD counsel of the assessee requested to delete the addition of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- under the head income from other sources made by the AO confirmed by LD CIT(A)NFAC. 10. On the other hand LD DR vehemently supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer confirmed by LD CIT(A)NFAC therefore requested before the bench to confirm the concurrent findings dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 11. We have heard LD counsels from both the sides perused the material available on record. The only solitary question raised by the assessee for our consideration is that whether the AO was justified in making the addition of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- to the income of the assessee or not. In this regard we find that the assessee entered into an agreement (Haami Patra) with Radhabai Vitthalrao Kawade her son Gaurav Vitthalrao Kawade to purchase their property for a consideration of Rs. 7,00,00,000/-. But the assessee did not purchase the property. The Agreement (Haami Patra) was therefore got cancelled on 20-02-2015. This cancellation deed clearly says that henceforth there will be no right of the assessee on the impugned property. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure so incurred/claimed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer in the absence of any evidence in support of expenses incurred, denied the claim of such expenses which resulted in income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- under the head income from other sources . From the above facts it emerges clearly that it was not the Assessing Officer who made the addition of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- as income under the head income from other sources , but it was the assessee himself who voluntarily declared such an income in his return of income. It is also apparent that in the absence of any evidence in support of the expenses incurred, the assessing officer only disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee towards expenses claimed in the name of coordination and settlement expenses. Further from the perusal of computation of income, which was furnished before the bench copy of income tax return filed in the paper book (page no.15 of paper book no.1), it was discovered, that the assessee has claimed the credit of TDS of Rs. 1,75,000/-. Although, before the AO, before LD CIT(A)/NFAC even before the bench it was the contention of the counsel of the assessee, that the credit of TDS was not claimed. On furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent by claiming deduction in the name of coordination settlement expenses for which he does not have any supporting documents. It is also held, that the claim of the assessee, that the Assessing Officer has made the addition, is not correct, because he himself declared the income during the assessment proceedings, could not substantiate the deduction claimed by him. It is also important to observe here that the case of the assessee was selected under CASS for the reason of claiming deduction under the head income from other sources . Therefore, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of deduction made by the assessee in his return of income. In the instant case the assessee failed to provide any proof in support of expenses/deduction claimed by him. It is worthwhile to mention here that legislature has provided certain procedure under the Income Tax Act the assessee cannot chose to show income or expenses according to his own choice. Undoubtedly, the assessee was in receipt of income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- in his hands, which was voluntarily declared by him in his return of income and the deduction towards expenses claimed by him were not supported by any voucher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the provisions of the Act the Rules. In the instant case, the assessee himself has decided that what is to be shown, how much is to be shown when to be shown. In the light of above case law the assessee is not at liberty but bound by the provisions of the Income Tax Act Rules. While filing return of income the assessee discovered his own process by declaring the income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- simultaneously claiming 100% of it as expenses though he did not have any such expenses. Secondly, the civil suit of forgery was filed by the purchasers only after 3 years of the sale of the property, till then the assessee was enjoying the amount without making payment of income tax. Even after the intimation of the civil suit against him the assessee did not bother to refund the amount to the purchaser has also filed complaint against the purchaser for recovery of the balance amount from the purchaser. It is obvious that till date the sale deed has not been cancelled by the authority but still the assessee is trying to avoid the payment of income tax in the name of civil suit. On the basis of section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act the assessee was required to show income in the year of receipt wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
