Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 89 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69A - biana (advance) against sale of his residential house - Held that:- If the cash was maintained as he might, on a failure of the transaction, be required to repay the intending buyer, the same was not done. And neither could the assessee make use of the cash so generated, stated to be for his urgent needs, serving thus no purpose! The agreement stipulating the forfeiture of the advance in case of a default by the buyer, there was no imminent risk of repayment (of advance), which could in any case be repaid out of the sale proceeds of the sale of house. Why, again, the transaction failing, was the house not sold, i.e., to another, despite requiring, as stated, funds for meeting the financial crisis of his business and discharge the debts of his, since deceased, father. There is, thus, considered whichever way, nothing to justify the assessee’s explanation of the cash with him as on account of an advance against sale of his residential house. Even as no such offer was made, it makes one wonder as to why one, in the process of shifting abroad, as inferable from his having gone abroad before 10.04.2008, would consider investing in India and, further, in a residential house, even as his residential needs are being ostensibly met and, in any case, would abate on his proceeding abroad. Even if one would were to take into account a change of events, i.e., after 03.10.2007, the date of the last installment (of ₹ 2.50 lacs), he would rather complete the transaction and sell the house to another to avoid the loss, if not actually gain in-as-much as real estate generally tends to appreciate. That is, rather than incur a substantial loss (of ₹ 6.50 lacs), which makes the assessee’s case all the more improbable and make-believe. It may though be clarified that the assessee’s case fails not on that account, or for that reason, alone, but primarily in view of there being nothing on record to show of the intending buyer as having paid advance and, thus, suffered the said loss. In fact, the agreement being not registered, the validity of the said agreement, in view of Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, is in serious doubt I have little hesitation in confirming the impugned assessment and, accordingly, decline interference. The assessee’s reliance on the decision in P.K. Noorjahan [1997 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] is also misplaced. In the present case, the assessee is admittedly a businessman, whose business though may be experiencing a downturn, even as there is nothing on record to exhibit the same. He has, further, deposited ₹ 12.90 lacs in cash in his savings bank account, maintaining an average cash balance of ₹ 4 lacs during the year. - The assessee’s appeal is dismissed
|