Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 324 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained credit u/s 68 Held that:- This is only an isolated transaction in the relevant bank account, but as far as the assessee is concerned, it is demonstrated that the assessee has received the money through banking channels, viz. through that account - The creditor might have declared smaller amounts of income in the returns filed, but merely on that count alone, credit-worthiness of the creditor cannot be brushed aside, as she may be having receipts by way of agricultural income and capital gains which are tax free - Those factors may give rise to a doubt as to the genuineness of the transaction, but cannot clinch the issue against the assessee - The addition has been made by the Revenue authorities by expecting the assessee to establish the source of the source, which is not permissible under law - it may be in the hands of the creditor, if she is not able to explain the credit in her bank account, but not in the hands of the assessee, who has discharged the onus on him, by demonstrating that the amount in question has been received by him from the bank account of the creditor, establishing not only identity, but also the credit-worthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction the order of the CIT(A) is set aside Decided in favour of assessee. Capital gains addition Whether the capital gains arising out of a property given for development are liable to be taxed - Held that:- Year of assesability of capital gains arising out of a development agreement, depends more importantly terms and conditions of the development agreement and flow of consideration in terms of the development agreement - the development agreement has not envisaged any consideration to be passed on to the land owner, viz. the assessee, at the time of signing of the development agreement - The development agreement categorically declared the assessee and his wife to be the owners of the property being developed until the completion of all the development work and till the handing over of the completed portion coming to the share of the assessee and his wife, with the title in relation to the other constructed areas being transferred by the assessee himself, to the nominees of the developer - The development agreement has specifically provided that the possession handed over to the developer by the land owners was only a permissive one, for the limited purpose of developing the property in terms of the agreement, and the same shall not be construed or treated as part performance of the agreement u/s 53A of the Transfer of property Act. The title over the property continues to rest with the land owners irrespective of handing over of the possession to the developer, and passes from the land owners only on the completion of the construction by the developer and registration of the completed flats in favour of the nominees of the developer, and does not indicate/prescribe any consideration in terms of money or otherwise flowing to the land owners before the completion of construction and handing over of constructed area coming to the share of the land owners, by the developer, it is not correct for the Revenue authorities to say that the consideration flowed to the assessee on account of the expenditure incurred by the developer on the development of the property - the capital gains have to be brought to tax only in the AY 2007-08, when the development of the property in terms of the development agreement has been completed and the constructed area coming to the share of the land owners has been handed over by the developer Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) Held that:- There is a change in the version of the assessee as to the nature of the payment made by her to Dr. K. Ramchandra - While the payment was claimed in the first instance as consultancy charges, and the same stood disallowed in the original assessment proceedings u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, in the return filed in response to the notice u/s.153A of the Act, the disallowance has not been offered to tax, and in the assessment proceedings that ensued assessee came with the plea that what was paid was by way of fixed amount of salary and not consultancy charges - since such consultancy charges were paid without complying with the TDS provisions, the AO made disallowance of the amount u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, while originally completing the assessment the disallowance made in terms of u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the income of the assessee, even in the assessment proceedings initiated, subsequent to the search action, by issuance of notice u/s 153A of the Act Decided against assessee. Addition u/s 69 Held that:- The wills of testament on which reliance was placed by the assessee for explaining the jewellery have been found/furnished by the assessee at the time of search - The wills found at the time of search may not be registered documents - But non-registration of the will by itself does not warrant any adverse inference against the assessee - the fact that a will was found at the time of search itself, leaves no scope for implying it to be a fabricated or non-genuine document, and being a document produced spontaneously to substantiate the contention of the assessee while explaining the jewellery found, leads one to believe it to be an authentic one, in the absence of any material found to suggest the non-genuineness of such a document - That reasoning given is also not correct because the averments made in the will, free English translation of which has been furnished to us, speak otherwise and state that the assessee is only grand-daughter of the deponent, Dr. G. Lakshmamma - The other averments made such as the Lakshmamma, on account of her old age, staying with the assessee, who alongwith other family members, including her husband, Dr. K. Ramachandra and daughter, Chetana taking care of her and her husband, Late Venkataiah 1995, and her continuing to stay with the assessee and her family even after the death of her husband, only justify the action of the deponent in bequeathing her entire jewellery in favour of the assessee and her daughter - there is no justification to disbelieve the version of the assessee Decided in favour of assessee.
|