Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 670 - AT - Income TaxAddition made on account of extra consideration received by the assessee - Held that:- We are of the opinion that estimation of 25% of the undisclosed turnover at ₹ 250 per sq. ft. be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee instead of ₹ 100 per sft being the net profit out of the on-money of ₹ 250 per sft., considered by the CIT(A). In other words, Income of the assessee to be considered as ₹ 62.50 per sft being the net profit out of the on-money receipt of ₹ 250 per sft. Thus the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed. Earning on sale of the land - nature of land - Held that:- Even if the land was developed and was sold after converting into plots with a view to secure the better price it cannot come within the purview of adventure in the nature of trade and business. Further, it is admitted fact that the land in dispute herein is an agricultural land and assessed to land revenue. The earning on sale of the land was in the nature of capital gain and therefore, not assessable as income from business. Accordingly, we are entirely agreement with the findings given by the CIT(A) in his order and the same is confirmed. The grounds raised by the revenue are rejected. Not giving credit to the balance of cash available in his capacity as the Karta of HUF as on the opening day of the financial year - Held that:- In this case, the assessee filed the return of income on 21.2.2008 and disclosed the entire investment in purchase of agricultural property. The assessee had 50% share in the land. Since the entire investment is disclosed in the return of income filed before the date of search, there is no question of treating the same as undisclosed income in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. More so, due credit has to be given towards opening cash balance available with assessee in his individual capacity as well as HUF as the fund is available for investment in land. Accordingly, this ground is allowed. Addition u/s 40A - Held that:- Since we have already held elsewhere in this order that the land in dispute is an agricultural land and the provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable being it is covered by the exception provided in Rule 6DD of the IT Rules. Accordingly, we do not find infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) on this issue. The order of the CIT(A) is confirmed on this issue.
|