Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 782 - ITAT LUCKNOWAddition of unexplained investment under various heads – Held that:- Had it been the case of admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) without confronting to the AO, the Revenue should have taken a ground with regard to the violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules - from the details furnished, the assessee has given a certificate that the evidences were filed before the AO and the certificate was not disputed by the revenue - the details were available before the AO and before making addition in this regard, the material should have been examined by him - CIT(A) has carefully examined the details of investment from one scheme to the other and finally concluded that actual investment in TATA Assets Management was ₹ 10 lakhs and not ₹ 27,67,236/- as adopted by the AO – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld. Source of investment – Held that:- The document was executed on a plain paper and it is a fake document, as it is not properly legible - It is important to note here that in Uttar Pradesh, agreement for sale of immovable property is required to be registered under the Indian Registration Act, of which Stamp Duty is required to be paid - only that property can be sold which is owned by the seller - In the absence of documents for ownership of the property, the factum of execution of sale agreement cannot be accepted -No prudent man will purchase any property from anyone which is not owned by him - this is the case where the assessee has raised certain funds for investment and onus is upon him to prove the same - It is for the assessee to place the relevant evidence to establish that he in fact has received the amount of ₹ 8.80 lakhs from the buyer on execution of sale agreement - assessee has badly failed to discharge his onus - the claim of the assessee that receipt through execution of sale agreement is also one of the sources of investment, cannot be accepted – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the AO is directed to compute the addition. Availability of funds on redemption of investment – Held that:- The details of year-wise investments were not furnished in order to ascertain the nature and quantum of capital gain - the assessee has not offered any capital gain on redemption of these Mutual funds - the CIT(A) had accepted the claim - this issue was not properly examined by the CIT(A) in the light of year-wise investment in Mutual funds and its redemption and also nature of holdings and nature and quantum of capital gain accrued in the impugned assessment year – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided partly in favour of revenue.
|