Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2507 - AT - Income TaxOn-money received in cash - AO branding the assessee as trader in the land - assessement u/s 153A - Held that:- As we have held that the assessee is not a trader. Therefore, if any cash component received by him, the same be treated as receipt from transfer of agricultural land exempt from tax. Addition u/s 50C - Sale of land - addition on between the sale consideration shown in the sale deed vis-a-vis the value on which the stamp duty was paid - Held that:- Section 50C of the Income Tax Act provide that where consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer by an assessee of a capital asset being land or building or both is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payments of stamp duty in respect of such transfer the value so adopted by the assessee for the purpose of section 48 be deemed to be full value of the consideration received or accrued as a result of such transfer. Thus, a conjoint reading of both sections would indicate that while calculating the capital gain under section 48, the value adopted for the payment of the stamp duty would be considered as full sale consideration received or accrued to the assessee on transfer of a capital asset. In the present case no capital gain computation is there. The assessee is a purchaser therefore deeming fiction provided under section 50C cannot be applied upon the assessee. Addition on account of accrued interest income of the assessee - Held that:- AO atleast ought to have proved that it is in the hand-writing of the assessee or of any family member. In the absence of corroborative evidence, it is quite difficult to give any categorical finding. The first onus is upon the Revenue to charge the assessee with exact details pointing out that these details relate to the assessee. No such effort was done by the AO also. Therefore, we give benefit doubt to the assessee and on the basis of such insufficient incomplete evidence, the assessee cannot be burdened with taxability. Thus additions deleted Addition on opening capital balance - Held that:- This aspect needs verification. The AO has not recorded any categorical finding on this issue. We direct the AO to verify whether the assessee has filed the balance sheet with the return of income in earlier years, more particularly, for the Asstt.Year 2002-03 and disclosed the capital balance in the closing account at ₹ 19,11,522/-, then no addition will be made on account of opening capital balance in the Asstt.Year 2003-04. The ld.AO shall carry out this exercise after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Addition on account of unaccounted cash found at the time of search - Held that:- CIT(A) has granted telescopic benefit to the assessee. Once the ld.CIT(A) has accepted the fact that the additional income offered by the assessee of ₹ 9 lakhs can easily be take care of alleged unaccounted cash found during the course of search carried out during the accounting period 2009-10. We find no error in the finding of the ld.CIT(A), which is confirmed Addition on cash credit - Held that:- A perusal of the finding recorded by the CIT(A) would indicate that the seized documents pertained to Asstt.Year 2001-02. These are loans taken by M/s.Liberty Polymers Industries and not by the assessee. Therefore, their additions cannot be made in the hands of the assessee, more so, in the Asstt.Year 2009-10. The ld.AO has not assigned any particular reasons for treating the income in the hands of the assessee. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the CIT(A) Addition on promissory notes inventory - Held that:- no amount is outstanding towards the assessee taken from the Shroff. Because, according to the CIT(A), if the assessee has taken loan and then returned that loan and collected back his promissory note, then also no unaccounted income could be construed as generated. The AO did not find unexplained investment during the course of search. Thus, we do not find any error in the findings of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition Undisclosed investment - Addition on account of some rough working - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- First Appellate Authority has deleted the addition on the ground that it is difficult to infer the nature of income whether the investment or otherwise. The entries reflected in the seized paper do not goad adjudicating authority to any logical conclusion. The ld.DR also failed to point out the error in the conclusions arrived by the CIT(A). He simply relied upon the order of the AO. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Appeal decided partly in favour of assessee
|