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 2 - AT - Income TaxAddition towards cash found at the time of survey - Held that:- There is no dispute that the amount belongs to assessee and was found in the course of survey. It was the contention of assessee that the sources are withdrawals from bank accounts and firm’s accounts but no such evidence was furnished either before A.O. or before appellate authority. Even before us, except making the arguments, no evidence has been furnished. In the absence of any supporting contentions, we are of the opinion that the authorities are justified in confirming the addition. - Decided against assessee. Addition towards unexplained withdrawals - Held that:- Assessee could not substantiate by way of any confirmation or account copies of the so-called withdrawals from the firms. By a separate order, we have also dealt with the appeal in the case of M/s. Ramaswamy & Sons which is supposed to have been advanced ₹ 1 lakh to assessee. In that case, there are no books of accounts and assessments have been completed on estimation basis as that assessee has not even filed return. In the absence of any evidence with reference to confirmation of amounts received as credits, the amount of ₹ 2,50,000 was rightly confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). We see no reason to interfere with the order - Decided against assessee. Claim of exemption under section 10(37) - Held that:- Capital gains is exempt in the case of assessee being an individual arising from the transfer of ‘agricultural land’ where such transfer is by way of ‘compulsory acquisition’ under any law as per Sec. {10(37)(iii)}. There is nothing on record to indicate that the land which is acquired by HUDA as stated by assessee was ‘agricultural land’ under the definition of the I.T. Act, even though the land may be used for agricultural purposes. Since, assessee himself offered the capital gain. A.O. had no occasion to examine this issue, whether the land in question is exigible to capital gains or not. Before the Ld. CIT(A) when assessee has raised as an additional ground, he should have examined the facts required and should have adjudicated the same on legal principles as it goes to the root of the matter whether capital gains can be offered or not. Since the Ld. CIT(A) rejected without adjudicating the same/examining the same, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given an opportunity to explain whether the capital gains offered in the return of income is correct or not. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that this matter is to be re-examined by A.O. after obtaining necessary information/evidence or facts for establishing that the land in question is ‘agricultural land’ as per the definition of the I.T. Act and the same is compulsorily acquired by HUDA and provisions of section 10(37) are applicable. Assessee is directed to file necessary evidence before A.O. in order to examine the issue. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
|