Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 608 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153C - Unexplained income - Cash credit in bank account - CIT sustained partial addition - Held that:- assessee derived income from job receipts of Rs. 1,15,312/- and agricultural income of Rs. 30,000/- and the said incomes were admitted in the return of income filed. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 153C on 18/12/2009 determining the total income at Rs. 3,50,370/- which included agricultural income of Rs. 30,000/- treating the same as income from other sources and he also added Rs. 2,05,059/- being the amount credited in the bank account holding that such credits were not explained. We are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer while making addition of Rs. 2,05,059/- did not consider the fact that the assessee was carrying on business and such receipts were available for depositing in the bank account. The gross amount, therefore, would be much higher and was available for the assessee to be deposited and the assessee also receiving agricultural income of Rs. 30,000/-. Hence, taking into facts of the case, we delete the addition of Rs. 89,747/- as against the addition of Rs. 2,05,059/- made by the Assessing Officer - Decided in favour of assessee. Assessee located the property only in April, 2007 i.e. immediately after the end of the previous year. The agreement of sale cum general power of attorney was executed by Smt. A Renuka in favour of the assessee wherein it is mentioned that an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was paid by the assessee, a copy of which has been filed at pages 88 to 98. It is clear from the above that the assessee paid Rs. 15 lakhs and incurred expenses in acquisition of the property by way of General Power of Attorney. The said property was ultimately transferred in favour of Radha Realters vide sale deed dated 01/01/2009 for a consideration of Rs. 18,15,000/-. Also the expenditure on stamp duty is to be considered, the cost would be more than Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, this clearly indicates that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs received during the previous year is for the acquisition of the property. In our considered opinion, the transaction is genuine as the property was registered in favour of the person, who has advanced the amount. Advance given for land - Held that:- It can be said that if the creditors are close relatives of the assessee or his employees the burden of the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions will be heavier in relative terms than in a case where the creditors are the outsiders. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under Section 68 of the Act the assessee is not expected to establish the capacity of the creditors to advance money and genuineness of the transactions is not acceptable to us, and we hold that the assessee is expected to establish proof of identity of his creditors, capacity of his creditors to advance money and genuineness of the transactions in order to discharge the onus imposed on him under Section 68 of the Act - Assessee has established identity of his creditors, capacity of his creditors to advance money and genuineness of the transactions in order to discharge the onus imposed on him under Section 68 of the Act - Following decision of R.B. Mittal Vs. CIT [2000 (8) TMI 54 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court] - Decided in favor of assessee. Disallowance u/s 40A - Held that:- amounts paid to various persons is on behalf of the principals and not on his own behalf and each of the receipt clearly indicate that they have been paid the amount only for clearing the property which was purchased by DLF. Therefore, the payments do not represent the expenditure but represents the payments made on behalf of and for the purpose acquisition of the property by DLF and hence, the provisions of u/s 40A(3) have no application to the facts of the case of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 2,95,50,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) on account of amounts paid in cash on behalf of the principals is hereby deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
|