Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 919 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credits - addition u/s 68 - Held that:- It has come on record that four out of these six persons had agricultural land ownership in their names since they placed on record their 7/12 and 8A certificates to name a few. The Assessing Officer took note of the fact that two persons could not prove their land title. The assessee proved in the course of lower appellate proceedings that these two farmers were joint owners of the land. There is further no dispute that the assessee duly accounted for land purchases in financial year 2006- 07 and there is neither any purchase agreement nor cancellation thereof in writing. It is therefore clear that these six vendors have returned their advances to the assessee in the impugned assessment year. Ld. CIT(A) further records a finding a fact that the assessee successfully linked the payment in question in case of each party. The extra-ordinary circumstance forming primary reason of cash payment is that there were some DRT proceedings wherein the assessee was in urgent need of money. We notice that all the relevant evidence forms part of the case file. Revenue fails to rebut any of the CIT(A)’s findings with the help thereof. We find no reason to interfere in well reasoned lower appellate findings. This first substantive ground fails accordingly. Learned Departmental Representative takes us to Assessing Officer’s findings wherein Shri Amit Patel was found to have deposited the same amount in his bank account on the very day of issuing relevant cheque to the assessee after having received the same from two persons Shri Sandeep and Chhotubhai Patel to the tune of ₹ 5 lacs and ₹ 1 lacs; respectively. This argument fails to impress upon us as the same rather proves source of the assessee’s source wherein all other evidence supports his case. We come to latter sum of ₹ 7 lacs. This case file reveals that the same amount came from one Shri Ramesh Narottam Patel as land advances received back. This also explains source of source in assessee’s case. We further notice that the assessee in the instant case has already filed all income tax statements/returns along with their bank account. Both these persons are related to the assessee (supra). The Revenue does not controvert all these findings in the course of hearing before us. We conclude in these facts that the assessee has been able to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of its eight payers in question. We find no reason to reverse CIT(A)’s order under challenge - Decided against revenue
|