Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 316 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 54 - AO held that an amount not deposited in capital gain account before the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) as ineligible for exemption u/s 54 - retrospectivity of amendment brought by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 in sub-section (1) of section 54 w.e.f. 1st April, 2015 - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) misdirected himself in forming his view that the amendment brought by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 in sub-section (1) of section 54 w.e.f. 1st April, 2015 is retrospective being clarificatory in nature and that the amendment restricts the benefit of exemption u/s 54 to purchase of one house property. CBDT Circular No. 1 of 2015 dated 21.01.2015 explains that the amendment applies in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. Consequently, the amendment will not apply to the case of the assessee which pertains to AY 2012-13. It may be stated that the Ld. AO did not record any finding on the claim of adjustment of stamp duty of Rs. 2,94,000/- in computing long term capital gain made by the assessee. The claim has not been entertained by the Ld. CIT(A) for want of evidence of payment. AR has also not addressed us in this regard. As it is, now the claim has become only academic in nature. Accordingly, we decide all the additional grounds taken by the assessee before the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Addition u/s 68 - assessee did not offer proper explanation as to the nature and source of the cash deposits and added the same to the income of the assessee - assessee in reply stated that during the year total amount was deposited by her husband in her bank accounts - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) disbelieved the explanation of the assessee merely for want of confirmation of deposits from the husband of the assessee without appreciating the circumstances under which the assessee was placed wherein she could not force her husband to confirm the deposits made by him in her bank accounts. The assessee has brought on record date-wise cash deposited in her bank accounts during the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015 as also the details of amounts received by the assessee as stridhan from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015. It is an admitted position that PAN of the creditor husband was given to the Ld. AO who could easily ascertain the creditworthiness of the assessee which was not done. CIT(A) has not stated that he examined the ITRs of the husband but drew adverse inference that he was a man of no means which is contrary to the facts available in the records. Where the assessee gave the name and address of the creditor and furnished PAN No., merely issue of notice to the creditor and not pursuing the matter further by the Revenue, held in RISSA CORPORATION PVT. LIMITED [1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the nature and source of credit entries that lay on the assessee. We therefore, hold that the impugned addition under section 68 made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not rest on sound legal footing. We delete the same. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|