9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein, it was held that when the agreed consideration as per conveyance deed and circle rates are different and assessee objects to the adoption of such circle rate, then the ld AO should refer the matter to valuation officer as contemplated in Section 50C(2) - direct the ld AO to refer the matter to ld DVO and determine/ recompute the capital gains in accordance with the provision of Section 50C(2) - Ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Unexplained cash receipt - HELD THAT:- There is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the AO or by CIT(A) to prove the fact that the assessee had indeed received a sum in cash on account of alleged excess sale consideration. No cross verification whatsoever was made by the lower authorities with the buyer of the property i.e. Shri Krishan Kumar. Hence, there is no scope for making any addition on the ground of suspicion that assessee had received in cash on sale of property. Sale deed was ultimately registered by the assessee only on 05.04.2011, which falls in AY 2012-13. Hence, in any event, the alleged differential sale consideration figure cannot be brought to tax in the hands of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a plausible explanation in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, this matter, in our considered opinion, requires factual verification. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fairplay, to restore this issue to the file of ld AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law and also in the light of explanation given by the assessee before us. Accordingly, ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fotech Pvt Ltd on various dates without finding any fault towards genuineness of the cash flow statement submitted before him to prove the source of cash received on withdrawals including gifts from family members, thus assessee prays for passing necessary instruction towards verification of the genuineness of the cash flow statement including gift deeds of the relatives so as to provide relief on account addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- being cash paid to M/s.Ring India Infotech Pvt Ltd. 5. That on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 68 and addition of Rs. 40,000/- under section 69A referring the loose sheet impounded during the course of survey without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts thus addition u/s.68 can not be made and more over loose sheet impounded during survey being a 'Dumb Document' no charge can be created against the assessee in absence of corroborative evidence, accordingly assessee prays for deletion of Rs. 10,40,000/- in full.. 6. That on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s many offices as per Building Norms. The Building is not even visible from the main road and is only approachable from a narrow lane adjoining Haryana Agro Petro Pump. There is also a Power House in proximity adding to nonsense value." 5. The assessee also submitted that the impugned property was subject matter of litigation and brother of the assessee had filed a suit for partition of the property by metes and bounds and also Contempt of Court and for appointing a receiver for the building. All these facts had collectively reduced the possibility for occupancy of the property in lease by giving the space to tenants. Ultimately, the assessee decided to sell the property out of compulsion at a distressed sale price. The assessee also furnished a valuation report from an approved valuer and furnished the same as additional evidence before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) ignored the said valuation report and upheld the circle rates adopted for the property and confirmed the addition made by the ld AO. 6. We find that the assessee had even sought for reference of the properties to Department Valuation Officer (DVO) in terms of Section 50C(2) of the Act. This request was not adhe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought the differential sum of sale consideration of Rs. 43,20,000/- (1,15,20,000-72,00,000) to tax as unexplained cash receipt. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CIT(A). 9. Before us, the ld AR drew our attention to page 138 of the Paper Book being the order passed u/s 7(1) of the Right to Information Act (RTI) Act, 2005 by the ld AO wherein, the assessee had specifically sought for the certified copy of agreement to sell dated 17.02.2011 with Shri Krishan Kumar which has been relied upon by the ld AO to frame the addition of Rs. 43,20,000/-. The ld AO in response to RTI Application dated 01.05.2023 of the assessee mentioned in the said order that the documents are enclosed herewith. Those documents are enclosed in pages 139 to 140 of the Paper Book. On perusal of the pages 139 to 140 of the paper book, we find that there is absolutely no mention of the figure of Rs. 1,15,20,000/- being the agreed sale consideration and there is also no mention about the receipt of Rs. 19 lakhs in cash as alleged by the ld AO in the assessment order. There is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the ld AO or by the ld CIT(A) to prove the fact that the assessee had indeed rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstructions Pvt. Ltd. (CCPL) to develop and construct a commercial building at the exclusive Cost of Creator Constructors Pvt Ltd. and the building so constructed was to be shared between the parties equally. 3. CCPL was unable to complete the constructions and had then surrendered their rights to the Assessee permitting him to enter into a fresh Collaboration Agreement with Senior Builders Pvt. Ltd 4. Another Collaboration Agreement was entered into between the Assessee and Senior Builders Pvt. Ltd. (SBPL) on 02/09/2002. This Party SBPL also could not honor the commitment and despite spending funds from our resources the building remained incomplete. 5. It was at this stage that M/s. RING INDIA INFOTECH PVT LTD. represented by its Director Mr. M.K.JASWANI stepped into the shoes of Senior Builders Private Limited and got the rights to get entire SBPL's share at a consideration of Rs. 6,42,00,000/- paid to Senior Builders Ltd. 6. Even after the entry of RING INDIA INFOTECH PVT LTD. the Building remained incomplete and in order to avoid complications this agreement was made that the RING INDIA INFOTECH PVT. LTD. shall relinquish and surrender all the rights, claims and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AY 2011-12. Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) deleted the sum of Rs. 1,23,24,000/- for AY 2011-12 and restricted the addition only to Rs. 40,00,000/- paid on 23.02.2011 falling in AY 2011-12. Against this order, only the assessee is in appeal before us. The assessee placed on record the cash flow statement in pages 136 to 139 of the Paper Book filed on 10.07.2023 also giving the daily cash balance available with him. This cash flow statement cannot be ignored to be of general in nature. We find that this cash flow statement requires factual examination of the ld AO to ascertain on a holistic basis as to whether the said statement would provide sufficient cash source to the assessee to explain the payment of Rs. 40 lakhs on 23.02.2011. To the extent of available cash source, the assessee certainly is entitled for relief. With these directions, we restore ground No. 4 to the file of the ld AO and allow for statistical purposes. 13. Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is challenging the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of unexplained cash credit and Rs. 40,000/- on account of unaccounted expenditure. 14. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es this loose slip and interest payment for May and June to be relating to May and June 2009. If that be so , then it only pertains to AY 2010-11 and hence, no addition could be made for the year under consideration. The addition deserves to be deleted even on this count. Accordingly, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed. 16. Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is challenging the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,70,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act. 17. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. The ld AO on perusal of page 84 of Annexure-4 of impounded document during the survey which consists of Kacha Khata of Vipin Sharma to whom the assessee had given loan during FY 2008-09. The ld AO observed that in support of the same, the assessee had received back the loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- and interest of Rs. 20,000/- on 23.03.2011 and 16.12.2010 respectively. This alleged receipt of Rs. 1,70,000/- was treated as unexplained income u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The assessee before the ld CIT(A) submitted that there was no loan transaction between him and Vipin Sharma. The assessee submitted that he had sold an old generator w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
