Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 939 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of land leveling expenses - AO disallowed expenditure and held that the expenditure has been incurred for the land to make saleable cannot be allowed as deduction from the sale consideration - HELD THAT:- As expenditure claimed in respect of land development expenditure, all are in round figure viz. the payment of sand leveling, advance payment for purchase of fencing, purchase of fencing and final payment for fencing - There are no corresponding bills or invoices produced before us to substantiate the above claimed made by the assessee. Page No. 11 of paper book is an estimate with quotation given by Mamta Industries for digging of borewell - However, this is not an invoice or bill given by the said Mamta Industries. It is simply an estimate with quotation only. There are no details of ST/GST of the party concerned in this estimate memo. Thus, these documents cannot be accepted for substantiating the claim of expenditure of borewell. Also as noticed that the assessee filed his Return of Income in Form No. 2 which is meant for individuals & HUF, NOT having income from Business or Profession. Thus, the assessee was not in clear mind to file the prescribed form and also claimed allowable expenditure, within the provisions of law. Thus, the lower authorities' finding of disallowance does not require any interference. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby rejected. Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- As stated in this confirmation accounts, PAN of the party was not furnished and one "Mr. Dilip" has signed on this document. The assessee also failed to produce Return of Income and bank statement relating to these transactions. Thus, the assessee failed to prove identity of the creditors and their capacity and genuineness of the transactions. It is well settled principle of law that onus of proving the source of the sum of money said to have been received by an assessee is on the assessee to prove identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the party as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif [1963 (2) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT]. Having not discharged the initial onus of proving identity, credit-worthiness and genuineness of the transaction of cash credit, the additions made by the lower authorities do not require any interference. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby rejected and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|