9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the specific provisions of Income Tax Statute. This issue also needs verification. Addition made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) towards purchase of immovable property also needs verification - As all the issues placed before us are remanded back to the file of the AO for proper adjudication of the issue and verification, after taking cognisance of the evidences filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceeding before the CIT(A) and before the Tribunal. AO is directed to decide the issues as per Income Tax Statute. - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sarju Mehta, AR For the Revenue : Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 19.06.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.11.2017 which was served upon the assessee. The assessee did not file requisite details at that juncture but after issuance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on 30.11.2017, the ld. AR of the assessee subsequently filed the details and submissions. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee earned normal interest income from the Bank in his Savings Bank Account and also earned rental income of Motor Car against which he has also claimed depreciation on Motor Car and Vehicle on interest expenses. After going through the details filed related to the cash deposit aggregating to Rs. 16,80,000/-, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act dated 03.11.2017 to the Bank and the Bank responded the same. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has personal savings of Rs. 3,60,400/- on date of demonetization and, therefore, the same was deposited in the account of that cannot be treated as unexplained cash deposit. Thus, the ld. AR submitted that the addition under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,60,400/- be deleted. As regard to ground no.2, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition of Rs. 16,12,245/- in respect of land sold by the assessee will not attract Section 50C of the Act as the said land was agricultural land and the purchase cost was not taken into account while calculating the capital gain towards property sold during the year. The Ld. AR further submitted that, at the time of selling of the land, the Assessing Officer totally overlooked that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of issues contested therein and despite giving several opportunities before both Authorities, the assessee failed to submit these documents. Therefore, the appeal be dismissed 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that as regard to ground no.1 related to cash deposits, from the perusal of records and Bank statements, it appears that this needs verification as the complete set of Bank statement were not before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Hence, this issue needs to be verified. As regard to ground no.2, the deed of sale of land is produced before the Tribunal at the time of hearing and the same also needs to be verified whether the land sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
