Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 154 - AT - Income TaxDenial of claim of capital gains computed by the Assessee - capital gain on sale of property - applicability of section 50C - Held that:- It is a fact that assessee had entered into an agreement for sale in 1990 to sell the property for ₹ 3,50,000/- and pursuant to the agreement Assessee was paid only 50,000/- on 17.05.1993. It is also a fact that the possession of the property was handed over by the Assessee on the receipt of earnest money of ₹ 50,000/-. The agreement for sale and Banakat which has been entered into by the Assessee have been placed on record and have not been disputed by the Department. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that the possession of the property was handed over by the Assessee in the year under consideration and not in the year 1990, being the year in which the Assessee had entered into a Banakat. We further find that Section 50C, being the special provision for the purpose of calculation of capital gains in certain cases, was inserted by Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 01.04.2003 and was therefore not applicable to the year when the Assessee had entered into the Banakat. We further find in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadja vs. CIT (2003 (2) TMI 62 - BOMBAY High Court) has held that the capital gains would be taxable in the year in which the transactions are entered into even if the transfer of immovable property is not effective or complete under the general law. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the submissions made by ld. A.R. nor has brought any contrary binding decision in its support. We are therefore of the view that in the present case the provisions of Section 50C could not be applied. We therefore direct the deletion of addition made by A.O. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of unaccounted investment - Held that:- With respect to addition of ₹ 88,050/- on account of interest, we find that Assessee has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A) and therefore to that extent we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). With respect to the addition on account of remaining amount of 15,85,179/- (Rs. 16,73,229/- less ₹ 88,050/-) is concerned, we find that in the absence of any submission of details by the Assessee before A.O, he considered the aggregate of amounts appearing in the credit side of the bank account with ICICI Bank as unexplained investment. Before us, Assessee has placed on record the copy of the bank statement which shows that various amounts have been debited and credited under “auto-sweep” and “revese-sweep”. We further find that there is no finding with respect to the “auto-sweep and “reverse-sweep” by both the authorities. We therefore restore the issue back to the file of A.O to re-work the amount of addition after considering the explanation of the Assessee with respect to “autosweep” and “reverse-sweep” and in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to co-operate by furnishing the necessary evidence as called for by A.O. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition on account of agricultural income - Held that:- As before A.O, Assessee had furnished the copy of 7/12 extract and Form 8A and from the land Assessee has stated to have earned agricultural income. The holding of agricultural land by the Assessee has not been doubted by the Revenue. Before us, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to substantiate that Assessee could not have earned any agricultural income from the land held by him. Considering the aforesaid and considering the holding of agricultural land and the smallness of amount of agricultural income, we are of the view that no addition is called for in the present case. Decided in favour of assessee.
|