Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1026 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - proof with documentary evidences - rental receipts received were deposited in cash in Hyderabad - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the computation of income filed by the assessee in the paper book shows that the assessee has declared the income from house property on the basis of annual lettable value and not on actual rent receipt. Therefore, when the assessee failed to file the details of rent receipts and the names of the tenants etc., the CIT (A) without verifying the contents of the remand report accepted the claim of the assessee regarding availability of cash as available for deposit in the Bank A/c which, in our opinion, is not justified. Similarly, the explanation of the assessee as available for deposit in the Bank A/c out of the accumulated cash was also not properly verified by the learned CIT (A) especially when the assessee in his balance sheet is showing cash in hand and cash balance differently. In our opinion, the matter requires a revisit to the file of the learned CIT (A) to decide as to how rent declared on the basis of annual lettable value can be available for cash deposit in the Bank A/c especially when the assessee is showing rent receivable at nil. Since the reasoning given by the CIT (A) while deleting both the additions are cryptic and merely based on the submissions filed by the assessee, therefore, considering the totality of the fact of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after going through the computation of total income filed by the assessee for the impugned A.Y. CIT (A) shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2 are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Addition u/s 69B read with 115BBE - unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- Receipt of money from one company through banking channel, in our opinion, does not absolve the assessee from proving the three ingredients i.e., identity & capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. In the instant case, it is not stated as to why the MOU was not filed before the Assessing Officer and what was the reason for Mr. K. Venkatanarayana to transfer the money to the two companies which in turn has been transferred to the account of the assessee instead of directly giving the amount to the assessee. CIT (A) in the instant case has failed to go into these issues. We find the CIT (A), in the instant case, without appreciating the observations made by the AO in the remand report deleted the addition merely on the ground that the amount was transferred through proper banking channel without ascertaining the creditworthiness of the two companies and Mr. K. Venkatanarayana - we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue. CIT (A) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law - ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
|