9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee during July 2016 aggregating to Rs. 15,00,000/- and hence we consider amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- as properly explained by the assessee. We therefore direct the AO to allow amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- as properly explained by the assessee. TDS u/s 194IA in the case of joint co-owners for the property - Treating the assessee as assessee in default - submissions made before revenue authorities stating that there are three joint owners as evidenced by the sale deed - HELD THAT:- As reading section 194-IA we noticed that transferee responsible for paying to a resident transferor any sum by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property is subject to deduct TDS @1% at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the transferor. In the instant case, it is evidenced by the sale deed submitted before us that there are three transferors holding equal shares in the property. Accordingly, the sale consideration of Rs.99 Lakhs is being shared by the three transferors at Rs. 33 Lakhs each. The revenue is not in dispute with respect to consideration of Rs. 99 lakhs. Since there are three joint co-owners the provisions of section 194-IA shall not be apply where the consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld.AO stating that source for cash deposits during the demonetization period is as follows: - Sources: A: Cash withdrawal from A/c. No. 623901253345 (Rs.) Date Amount (Rs.) 22.07.2016 1,20,000 28.07.2016 13,80,000 15,00,000 B: Rent for 8 Months @Rs.24,000 P.M from April to November 1,92,000 C: Savings of F.Y. 2015-16 Rent 2,40,000 Miscellaneous Income 4,80,000 7,20,000 24,12,000 5. The Ld.AO considering the explanation by the assessee being not satisfactory treated the cash deposits during the demonetization period aggregating to Rs. 17,86,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee made same submissions as was made before Ld.AO. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that no documentary evidences regarding the same has been provided by the assessee. 7. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - 1. The Appeal order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 from the bank account Number 623901253345 maintained with ICICI Bank. The Ld. AR demonstrated the withdrawals by filing the bank statements which is available in paper book at page no. 10. On perusal of the bank statements, it is noticed that the assessee has withdrawn cash after redeeming mutual fund investments. However, we are not able to accept the cash balances available with the assessee on the date of deposits arising out of the rental income or any other past savings in the absence of any documentary evidences provided for the same, even before us. Further we also notice from the Income Tax Returns submitted by the assessee, rental income is being adjusted against the interest payment on the housing loans. We are therefore of the considered view that assessee has properly explained the sources of cash with respect to the withdrawals made by the assessee during July 2016 aggregating to Rs. 15,00,000/- and hence we consider amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- as properly explained by the assessee. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to allow amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- as properly explained by the assessee. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king the submissions filed fully into consideration. Hence the appellant prays for relief. 3. The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in not considering the claim of the appellant that since the consideration paid to each transferor is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs, the appellant is not liable to deduct TDS u/s 194 IA of the Income tax Act and hence not an 'assessee in default' u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant prays for relief of the same. 4. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is not justified in treating the appellant as assessee in default and raising tax demand of Rs. 1,79,340/-. The appellant prays for relief of the same. 5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, the appellant prays for relief. 16. Ground Nos. 1 5 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 17. Ground Nos. 2,3 4 relates to the demand of Rs. 1,79,340/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the assessee as assessee in default . In this connection, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter Ld.AR ] reiterated the submissions made before revenue authorities stating that there are three joint owners as e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
