TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ignored the same and sustained the addition under Section 68 of the Act which is not as per the provisions of the said Section. Deduction under section 54F - HELD THAT:- The assessee has filed a paper book consisting documents as additional evidence, which developed and possessed by the assessee post passing of order by CIT(A) on 24.01.2018. The assessee has filed affidavit along with application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 along with the documents such as NOC from original Applicant to developer to include Balwant Singh as Joint owner also undertaking from new applicant along with detail of changes in the allottee/applicants. These documents were not before the Revenue authorities. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and after verifying the same to decide whether the claim of the assessee is tenable or not - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. - I.T.A. No. 1105/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2020 - Shri N. K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t scheme before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act or before the date of actual filing of return of income is also not based on correct appreciation of facts and law and denial of deduction under section 54F of the Act read with section 139 of the Act is also incorrect, misconceived and untenable. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in not directing the credit of tax of ₹ 80,000/- against the demand computed in the order of assessment dated 23.12.2016. 4. That various adverse findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are factually incorrect and contrary to record, legally misconceived and untenable. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that addition/disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed. 3. Return declaring income of ₹ 9,36,730/- was filed on 30/07/2014. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had deposited cash in his saving ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HUF. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has arbitrarily proceeded to disregard the confirmation/ evidence without bringing any adverse material on record. The Ld. AR also submitted that an explanation by an assessee, which is prima facie reasonable, cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary ground or on mere suspicion or on irrelevant grounds. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Chunnilal Tikaamchand Coal Ltd. vs. CIT 27 ITR 602 (Pat) ii) Mehta Parikh Co. vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC) iii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) iv) Sri Ram Tandon vs. CIT 42 ITR 689 (All) The Ld. AR submitted that in absence of maintenance of books of accounts no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit in bank account. The Ld. AR further submitted that where the assessee is neither required by law nor is maintaining books of account, provisions of Section 68 cannot be applied to the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the deeming Section 68 reveals that an addition under the said statutory provision can only be made where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year. Thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The assessee has given the details of cash deposits to the Assessing Officer as well as the same was produced before the CIT(A), but both the authorities ignored the same and sustained the addition under Section 68 of the Act which is not as per the provisions of the said Section. Thus, Ground No. 1 to 1.1 are allowed. 8. As regards Ground No. 2 to 2.5 related to addition made of ₹ 35,73,050/- which represented the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid claim is supported by following evidences which were produced before the Assessing Officer: A Evidence on Record i) Copy of evidence in respect of sale of flat No. B-7/703, Tulip Orange, Sector-70, Gurgaon on 28.6.2013 ii) Copy of application for allotment to Ramprastha Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd on 13.05.2013. iii) Copy of cheques dated 13.05.2013 given with application for allotment of plot to Ramprastha Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd. iv) Copy of Buyer agreement v) Copy of application and emails with Ramprastha Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd. vi) Copy of Form 26AS issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vii) Copy of complaint filed by assessee befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit of deduction of U/s 54 of the Act on that ground. 9. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee seeks to file additional evidence in respect of addition of ₹ 35,73,050/- representing the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee has filed a paper book consisting documents as additional evidence, which developed and possessed by the assessee post passing of order by CIT(A) on 24.01.2018. The assessee has filed affidavit along with application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 along with the documents such as NOC from original Applicant to developer to include Balwant Singh as Joint owner also undertaking from new applicant along with detail of changes in the allottee/applicants. These documents were not before the Revenue authorities. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and after verifying the same to decide whether the claim of the assessee is tenable or not. Needless to say, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
