Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1074 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of the opening cash in hand - Held that:- It is a fact that a statement was filed before the AO which contained certain mistakes. The AO has not commented on this fact in his remand report dated 03.12.2012. All the evidences in the paper book submitted by the assessee alongwith application for additional evidence were not considered by him. However, the correct statement of cash reveals that at no point of time did the assessee have cash in hand which was less than ₹ 8,19,700/-. However, there was an amount of ₹ 8,19,700/- at its maximum, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the credit upto that amount only and sustained the amount of ₹ 4,09,000/- (Rs. 12,28,700 less ₹ 81,19,700) only, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. Addition on account of Earned Money received in respect of sale of agriculture land - Held that:- when the existence of the parties concerned is not in doubt and the majority of the earnest money was received by cheque – details were made available to the AO, and the AO has not proved nor challenged their capacity to give such an earnest money, assessee was not called upon to produce those parties or to file confirmation letters, it was illegal on his part to tax the amount under section 68 of the Act. Non refund of the amount (though it was actually refunded – as is shown in the ‘statement of cash’ which was prepared at his instructions), it is immaterial in law for taxing the amount as it was received under ‘agreement to sell’ the agricultural land. In view of the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the entire addition - Decided against revenue Addition on Earned Money received in respect of sale of flat - Held that:- This is not borne out by facts, as the payments which were to be made to the assessee by the buyers in terms of a clause in the agreement, did happen. We note that one of the buyers, Sh. Vikram Singh, appeared before the AO and said that he received a monthly rental income of ₹ 25,000/- to ₹ 30,000/- per month, as also owing 10 acres of agricultural land. He also stated that he had given the advances to the assessee from time to time and also confirmed that the amount was returned with a penal amount of ₹ 1 lakh on cancellation of agreement. In our opinion, the said purchaser has proved his identity, genuineness and capacity to make the impugned payments. No where the AO been able to prove that this was the assessee’s own money channelized through a third party, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the entire addition
|