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 882 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - claim of 54F denied - Held that:- Approval given by the Ld. Pr. CIT in this case is very much on the record and there is no infirmity. With regard to tangible material, it is noted that the AO had issued query letters in response to which the then AR had filed sale deeds and bank statements from where the AO noted the mistake of an extra ‘zero’ which he discussed in the body of his order. It is only after examining the tangible material that the AO has dropped the proceedings against the daughter of the assessee and has taken action u/s. 147/148 against the assessee. Hence, CIT(A) has rightly dismissed this ground, which does not need any interference on my part, therefore, we uphold the same and reject the ground raised by the assessee. Plot has been registered in the name of Ram Baksh who is father of the assessee. Similarly, the sale deed has been executed by Ram Bakh and his son Sita Ram. From these documents, it is clear that the ownership in the property was of Ram Bakh and in the sale deed only the name of the assessee is there as second party. In the Affidavit of Assessee’s father has claimed that impugned property (Plot) belonged to HUF and got mutated in the names of assessee and his father. Hence, the claim of 54F which was made in the assessment proceedings cannot be given to the assessee as the property has been purchased by Ram Baksh the father of the assessee and not the assessee. AO was rightly directed to rework the capital gains accordingly, which does not need any interference on my part, hence, uphold the action of the CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the assessee. As regards sustaining of addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- is concerned, it is noted that the only issue which stands out is the opening cash in hand as seen from the Cash Flow Statement is of ₹ 3,50,088/- out of which the assessee has claimed to have deposited initial cash in bank of ₹ 1,60,000/- and assessee did not have any satisfactory explanation with regard to source of ₹ 1,00,000/- out of opening cash of ₹ 3,55,088/-. It is an admitted fact that assessee is a pure agriculturist and not having any other income. AO was rightly directed to sustain the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- and delete the balance, which does not need any interference on my part, hence, uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the assessee. The case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee do not support the case of the assessee being distinguished on facts. - Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.
|