Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 980 - AT - Income TaxAddition as professional receipts - Held that:- As assessee has voluntarily offered to disclose the income due to deficiencies noted during the survey. Revenue authorities have agreed to stop the investigation further by accepting the voluntary disclosure of income. It is the duty of the assessee to disclose the income as agreed with the revenue authorities during survey. Assessee has not brought on record or clarified to the satisfaction of the revenue nor before us the reason for reducing the professional income. In our considered view, the revenue has accepted to drop the investigation proceeding only because assessee has agreed voluntarily to disclose the professional income. Therefore, assessee should have disclosed the income as promised to the revenue authorities, hence, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Rental income received - business income or house property - Held that:- AO has brought on record clearly that assessee has let out this residential property on rent. Assessee has not brought on record any material to substantiate its claim neither before the revenue authorities nor before us. Hence, the finding that the rental income received by the assessee from the property, which was given on rent is to be treated as income from house property is sustained and this ground is dismissed. Unexplained capital gain - sale of property - difference on sale consideration - Held that:- The assessee has sold the property under consideration for the value less than the value for which he entered into agreement to sell with another person. The reason for selling lesser value and reason for cancellation was not brought on record by the assessee. Citing the above reasons, the AO brought to tax the difference amount as unexplained income. We fail to understand the logic of bringing the difference amount as unexplained income. The addition is on the difference of amount in sale consideration. If at all, AO could have increased the sale consideration to tax and calculated capital gains. However, in our opinion, only provision in the income tax to bring the difference of sale consideration is section 50C. In the given case, the value of SRO and sale consideration are matching, there is no room for the AO to bring the presumed difference on sale consideration to tax. The AO should have brought some cogent material to substantiate his stance rather than presumption Claim u/s 54F - denial of claim on the ground that the consideration was not utilized for acquiring new asset/the assessee failed to utilize the amount of sale consideration received for purchasing new asset - AO found that the assessee purchased the house property by availing bank loan instead of applying the sale consideration for the above purpose - Held that:- We are not in a position to accept the views of the AO considering the fact that the assessee need not have to utilise the sale consideration in the new property. It is enough that the assessee procures the new property within the stipulated time provided in section 54F to claim the exemption. How the property purchased by the assessee is irrelevant.
|