Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 824 - ITAT BANGALOREAddition u/s 69 - undisclosed sales consideration - sale of property - Held that:- The statement of the Vendor cannot be believed in view of the documentary evidence in the form of lease deed between the Assessee and the tenants after the transfer of the property in favour of the Assessee - Since no actual investment was made by the Assessee but he merely acknowledged liability to return security deposit to the tenants, no addition u/s. 69 can be made as the condition precedent for invoking those provisions are that the Assessee should have made an investment in the sense there ought to have been an outflow of funds from the Assessee, which condition is not fulfilled in the present case. The CIT(A) was therefore correct in deleting the addition made by the AO. We find no ground to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and hence ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Consideration received towards fixtures and furniture - We are of the view that the documentary evidence in the form of confirmation by M/s. Stone Art and M/s. IQCP India Pvt. Ltd., the tenants of the property that whatever furniture and fixtures exist in the property it is their own and not provided by the Vendor, has to be believed. The statement of the vendor has been denied by the Assessee in his statement. In such circumstances, the claim of the Vendor, which is the only basis of the impugned addition, cannot be believed. There are no other circumstances, which can compel us to take a view different from the view taken by the CIT(A). Consequently, Gr.No.3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Cash over and above the sale consideration stated in the registered document has been denied - Held that:- The basis on which the impugned addition was made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is the statement of the Vendor and the circumstance that the value of the property as per the Registering Authorities for the purpose of stamp duty and registration was much higher than the value stated in the sale deed and therefore there was a probability of the statement of the Vendor being true and further circumstance that the Vendor has offered the sum in question as income in her return of income filed for the relevant assessment year. The learned counsel for the Assessee has brought to our notice a decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prl.CIT Vs. Vivek Prahaladbhai Patel (2015 (12) TMI 1287 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on identical set of facts held that addition cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee
|