9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly we reject this ground of the assessee. Addition of property has been purchased in the joint name of assessee and Srinivasan Mahesh with 50% share - During the course of hearing it was asked who is/are the beneficiary of the property and if any income is derived from that property and if any amount is remitted to Srinivasan Mahesh or any utility cost is borne by the second joint holder or property is lying vacant, electricity bill , water bill or property tax payment, but the assessee could not submit any document. Even the statement of affairs of Srinivasan Mahesh to prove that assessee is a debtor in his books was not furnished. As per the Sale Deed, the assessee is the first owner of the immovable property which clearly bestows beneficial ownership to her. There is no definite share defined in the purchase deed but the assessee has deducted TDS on purchase of property of Rs. 1,55,645/- which is 1% of Rs. 1,55,64,500/- and transaction amount is also the same as reported in Form No. 26AS, in view of this the assessee s share is 50% in the purchased property. The assessee has got benefit without any payment more than the prescribed limit as per section 56(2) - CIT(Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 4.3 In any case without prejudice, the authorities below have erred in folding that provisions of Section 69 would apply to tile case of appellant. On proper appreciation of facts of the case and law applicable, it will be clear that there being no investment at all by the appellant, the provisions of Section 69 would not be applicable and the addition made is to be deleted. 4.4 The Assessing Officer had also erred in holding that provision of Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, would apply to the above addition and the learned CITA) has erred confirming in the same. On the proper appreciation facts and law applicable, the provisions of Section 115BBE will be not applicable, the calculation of tax @ 30% u/s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 5.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), - NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing officer amounting to Rs. 1,55,64,500/- albeit u/s 56(2) of the IT Act instead of section 69 of the Act as done by the Assessing officer on the ground that purchase of property has been made without adequate consideration. The addition as made/confirmed is erroneous and without any basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee filed return of income on 23.08.2022 in compliance of notice u/s 148 declaring total income at Rs. 13,91,210 and submitted that assessee has received income from time deposits in the past from her father s account and renewed during the year. The assessee submitted point wise reply which is incorporated in the AO s order as under:- S. No. Issue Amount (lakh) In reply 1. Time deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 and more 686.33 The deposits reported by the bank were deposits renewed from the past years and none of these deposits are new or fresh deposits. Each of these deposits was starting as old as financial year 2007-08. The source of these deposits was from my father bank account and transfer from my father bank account to my account. Thus the deposits were out of transfer my father bank account by way of inheritance / succession / gifts from my father. These deposits were accumulated over a period of several years as old as 2007 none during the year. Thus the source of these deposits were clearly explained. 2. TCS Statement Cash sale of bullion and jewellery (Section 206C) 14.34 During the year in issue, the assessee did not make any such purchase as reported in the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a total consideration of Rs. 3,11,29,000, the share of assessee was paid by the joint owner Mr. Srinivasan Mahesh from his accounted sources and it was given as interest free loan outstanding as loan as on date. In this regard notice u/s. 133(6) was issued to Srinivasan Mahesh for confirmation with supporting documents, but there was no response from him. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 28.02.2023 was issued to the assessee to submit relevant details of bank account of Srinivasan Mahesh with highlighted loan transactions, copy of his ITR and balance sheet shown as Debtor which the assessee failed to produce. The AO noted that assessee could not prove genuineness of her claim while it is onus of the assessee. He also noted that assessee had sufficient balance with her saving account and taking loan from others was not accepted. The AO noted that it is established that assessee had purchased the immovable property from her undisclosed income and invested in purchase of said immovable property as a joint holder and treated her share of Rs. 1,55,64,500 it as undisclosed investment u/s. 69 of the Act and made addition. The AO also noted that there is variation in interest income of Rs. 2,13,016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n assessee should have produced the financial creditworthiness of the jewellery buyer. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee did not substantiate the credential of the buyer and not submitted any single document in support of agricultural income of the buyer. Therefore it cannot be said that jewellery was purchased by other person. Further in respect of joint purchase of property, Srinivasan Mahesh has paid the entire amount from Canara Bank for purchase of property which is registered in the joint names and TCS is collected by the assessee paid which is appearing in the Form No. 26AS. The confirmation received from co-owner is also not acceptable that amount is still outstanding as loan and there is no proof for any benefit derived from the said property. It also cannot be accepted that huge amount is given to anybody interest free. Therefore the CIT(Appeals) has rightly treated it as gift u/s 56(2) of the Act. 10. Considering the rival submissions, we note that assessee has carried out substantial transactions during the year and she did not file her return of income. After receiving notice u/s. 148, return was filed. In regard to purchase of jewellery by Mr. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
