9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count. 4 (i) While deleting the addition of Rs. 11,19,980/- the Ld. CIT(A} erred in banking upon additional evidence in form of additional loan account No. 727971104 and saving bank account No. 724715643 and admitting the same in violation of Rule 46A of I. T. Rules. 5. Violation the Rule 46A of I. T. Rules that assessee has admitted the additional evidence regarding the additional loan account No. 727971104 and saving bank account No. 724715643 of Indian Bank before the Ld. CIT(A}~ but the remand report was not called for by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Rival contentions have been considered and records perused. During the course of scrutiny of assessment, the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 69,000/- u/s 69 on the plea that the assessee was not having sufficient cash for making the fixed deposit. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition after having the following observations :- 4.3 I have considered the A.O's order as well as the appellant's submission extracted as above. Having considered both, I find that the appellant has opening cash balance of Rs. 25,224/- during the year under consideration. Further it is seen that the appellant is indulge in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd from registered valuer. Thus, in my considered view the appellant's request cannot be acceded too. It is also seen that the appellant has claimed the exemption u/s 54 as the appellant has sold a house and a consideration was split into the land price and the sale of super structure (Malba) and accordingly has sold a house, whereas the A.O. has only considered the consideration of land and ignored the sale of super structure. The A.O. since considered the sale of land has considered the claim of the appellant of exemption u/s 54F, whereas looking to the facts of the case, the claim of exemption made by the appellant u/s 54 appears to be correct, I find that the appellant has invested a sum of Rs. 11,10,337/- out of the sale proceeds towards the purchase of house at Rani Baug, Indore for a consideration of Rs. 60.20 Lacs in the name of his wife. The appellant has claimed the utilization of sale proceeds u/s 54 of the I.T. Act. The appellant has relied upon various judicial pronouncements in support of its contention. The appellant's A/R argued that the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. V. Natarajan reported 154 Taxman 399 has clearly held that the exemption u/s 54 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made by the wife of the appellant and there is no connection with the appellant in this respect. Further it is evident that during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. did not asked any explanation from the appellant in this regard after obtaining the copy of account from the bank. I also find that the wife of the appellant is regularly filing return of income reflecting the income from the shop as well as agricultural income and out of which the payment in the loan account has been made. In view of the same, I consider it proper and appropriate to hold that Assessing Officer was not justified in making the aforesaid addition to the income of the appellant. Accordingly, the addition so made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and found that the loan was obtained for purchase of shop, wherein wife of assessee was regularly carrying on the business in the name of Anand Shree Fruit Juice. By considering income of wife, the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition. We find that as per the computation of income filed by his wife, the income which can reasonably be taken as free for deposit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of acquiring property for a short period of 7-8 Months were not reflected in Balance sheet of appellant. c) The position in this account is very clear that this is a mortgage loan account which the appellant had taken for the purpose of acquiring the house or the property and the operation in the loan account shows that the mortgage loan Rs. 10 lacs and additional loans Rs. 3 lacs. sanctioned by the bank have been transferred to the Saving Bank account and there from the cash was withdrawn by the appellant and was held as cash in hand for the purpose of purchase of any property. Since the suitable property could not be find out the appellant re-- deposited the said cash in hand in the account within period of six months. On perusal of all these three accounts it clearly shows that the deposit in this account is out of the same loan taken by the appellant. Further, the appellant has not utilised this amount for any other purpose. d) The learned Assessing Officer has made following additions: S.No Date Description Received 1 14.03.2007 Repayment by A/c TRF from SB A/c. 724715643 Rs. 2,810/- 2 11.05.2007 Repayment Received TRF from SB A/c. 724715643 Rs.36,294/- 3 18.07.2007 Repay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate that the deposit in the account was out of cash withdrawn from the same loan account. Accordingly the addition so made by the A.G. is deleted. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed. 11. Against the above order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us and ground regarding Rule 46A was also taken. 12. We have considered the rival submissions and found from record that Indian Bank account is a mortgage loan account of the assessee and loan was acquired with the object to purchase property. However, the Assessing Officer has only called the loan account but did not call saving bank account in which the disbursement of loan account was made. In this loan account, Rs. 10 lakhs was sanctioned and additional Rs. 3 lakhs was also given to the assessee. Thus, Rs. 13 lakhs was transferred by the assessee in a Saving Bank account. From this saving bank account, the assessee has withdrawn cash for purchase of property. Since the assessee could not purchase any property, the cash so withdrawn was again deposited in the bank account. The ld. CIT (A) has called for and examined all the three accounts and found that deposit in the loan account was out of cash withdrawn from the ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
