9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 68 - investment in purchase of immovable property unexplained - HELD THAT:- As assessee has furnished various details in support of the loan the name of the parties, their address, their return of income, confirmation of the parties, extract of the relevant passbook to show the creditworthiness of the parties etc. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the assessee has been able to discharge the onus regarding the source from Shri Devraj Harshadrai Patel and Ms. Reshmaben Vikrambhai Patel and accordingly addition is not liable to be sustained in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- The assessee has been able to duly explain the source of investment in the aforesaid property and accordingly, we are of the view that the balance investment of Rs. 32.96 lakhs has been that explained by the assessee - addition is not liable to be sustained as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee u/s 69 since the assessee has duly explained source of investment in purchase of immovable property, as having been sourced out of sale of immovable property, during the impugned year under consideration. Unexplained sund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he then CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad explaining with documents the details of capital gain as well as loans taken rendering the additions upheld by CIT(A) as erroneous factually as well as legally. 4. On the facts of the assessee read with the submissions submitted on 30.01.2020, the return income of Rs. 17,14,550 ought to have been accepted. 5. On the facts of the assessee no interest u/s. 234-A ought to have been levied. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or modify any grounds of appeal. Ground No.1: Addition of Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 40 lakhs. 3. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the assessee had sold immovable property, jointly with other co-owners for an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. Out of the above sale consideration, an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was received by the assessee from Harishbhai Prahladbhai Patel (purchaser) through banking channels and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was also withheld by the purchaser as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that against the aforesaid sale consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs, the assessee had shown capital gains of Rs. 17,14,550/- only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.11.2023 in the hands of the co-owner, Shri Devraj H. Patel, for ready reference: I have perused the remand report of A.O., written submission and additional evidences furnished by the appellant. The appellant sold the agriculture land for Rs. 40,00,000/- (being 1/5th share of the total value of Rs. 2.0 Crore). It is observed that the A.O. has added total sale consideration without giving effect of the indexed cost of acquisition of the said property. The appellant has submitted the sale deed, valuation report, proof of agricultural activity. In view of the above documents and the remand furnished by the A.O., it is held that the appellant is entitled to get benefit of the indexed cost of acquisition while computing the capital gain arose with regard to sale of the aforementioned property. 7. Even Ld. D.R. has accepted that the aforesaid addition is liable to be deleted in terms of aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), in the case of co-owner of this property. 8. In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee s appeal is allowed. Ground No.2: Addition of Rs. 38,50,000/- under Section 68 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the hands of the assessee. 13. On going through the details furnished by the Counsel for the assessee, we observe that the assessee has furnished various details in support of the loan amounting to Rs. 38.50 lakhs viz. the name of the parties, their address, their return of income, confirmation of the parties, extract of the relevant passbook to show the creditworthiness of the parties etc. Accordingly, in light of the evidences placed on record, we are of the considered view that the assessee has been able to discharge the onus regarding the source of Rs. 38.05 lakhs from Shri Devraj Harshadrai Patel and Ms. Reshmaben Vikrambhai Patel and accordingly in light of the above facts, addition of Rs. 38,50,000/- we are of the view that the addition is not liable to be sustained in the hands of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. 14. In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee s appeal is allowed. 15. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 1092/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. Now we shall take up the assessee s appeal in ITA No. 1093/Ahd/2023 (in the case of Devraj Harshadrai Patel) for A.Y. 2016-17 16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en able to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders and accordingly the additions made by the assessee with respect to the aforesaid four parties amounting to Rs. 1,32,90,000/- was directed to be deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) observed that while the assessee had made investment in immovable property amounting to Rs. 1,65,86,140/-, the assessee has only been able to explain source of investment with regards to a sum of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- (as loan taken from four parties, the source of which was duly explained), however, the assessee has been able to explain the source of balance investment of Rs. 32,96,140/- and therefore, this balance amount of Rs. 32,96,140/- was confirned as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee (total investment of Rs. 1,65,86,140/- less unsecured loans duly explained Rs. 1,32,90,000/-). 21. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid addition of Rs. 32,96,140/-, whereas the Department is in appeal before us against the relief of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- granted by Ld. CIT(A). 22. Regarding the source of balance investment, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has omitted to consider the fact that during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
