Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 186 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits - assessee has placed on record an abstract of his cash book - DR submitted that the authenticity of such an abstract of cash book is not established - HELD THAT:- If the position of cash sales vis-a-vis the bank deposits as depicted in the abstract for the month of November, 2009 is correct, then obviously no addition on account of cash deposits in the bank can be made because such deposits can be safely presumed to have been made out of cash sales made during the month, which is much more than the amount of deposits. Concurring with the submissions of the ld. DR, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for examining the abstract of cash book given. If the same accords with the regular books of account maintained by the assessee, then no addition should be made. Addition on account of cost of improvement - as per revenue assessee failed to prove that improvement was carried out to the property in question - HELD THAT:- assessee carried out improvement to the property through M/s. S.S. Rathi Developers. A copy of ledger account of the contract receipts of Mr. S. S. Rathi has been placed on record, in which receipt of ₹ 10,75,920/- from the assessee has been included. Such amount of total contract receipts at ₹ 29,56,976/- has gone into his Profit and loss account. He furnished the return with the resultant income accordingly. When the assessee furnished bill from M/s. S. S. Rathi Developers for carrying out improvement to the property and the said receipt from the assessee has been subjected to tax in the hands of Mr. S.S. Rathi, we do not find any reason for sustaining the disallowance on the ground that the assessee failed to prove that improvement - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance on account of exemption u/s.54F - Assessee owning two or more residential houses - as per revenue though the property purchased at Bibvewadi, Hyde park on 08-03-2010 was sold on 21-06-2010, but the assessee was having a separate house also at Rathi Niwas, Loni Kalbhor, Tal - HELD THAT:- Benefit of exemption as per this provision can be denied if the assessee owns two or more residential houses on the date or transfer of original asset, including the new asset for which the exemption is claimed. The balance sheet of the assessee as on 31-03-2010, whose copy has been placed at page 7 of the paper book, shows the flat at Hyde Park, which was purchased on 08-03-2010 but sold after the close of the year on 24-06-2010. There is another flat at Salisbury Park reflected in the balance sheet. This was the only residential house that the assessee was owning on the date of transfer of agricultural land on 13-07-2009. The ld. CIT(A) noticed that the assessee was having one more residential house, being, Rathi Niwas, Loni Kalbhor, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune, which was shown as his residential address in the return of income. AR submitted that Rathi Niwas house belongs to his father. In support of this contention, he placed on record a copy of payment of house tax in respect of this property by his father. It, therefore, becomes evident that Rathi Niwas house was not a residential house owned by the assessee on the date of transfer of the agricultural land. The assessee was having only one house, namely, flat at Salisbury Park. After transferring the agricultural land, the assessee availed exemption by purchasing another property on 28-09-2010. Thus, it is seen that there is no violation of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of proviso to section 54F as well. Assessee was right in claiming the benefit of exemption u/s.54F. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|