Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 192 - AT - Income TaxNature of land sold - Short-term capital gain on the sale of immovable property - land in dispute is the agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) OR not - whether AO should have referred the matter to the DVO to determine the market value as he found difference in the sale price viz a viz the value determined for the purpose of Stamp duty? - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee was just general Power of Attorney holder with respect to the lands in dispute. This fact has not been disputed by the authorities below. As such there was no documentary evidence available before the authorities below suggesting that the assessee has received consideration against the transfer of such lands. CIT (A) has given very clear finding that the impugned lands were not transferred. The learned DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the finding of the learned CIT (A). In such a situation we have no alternate except to confirm the finding of the learned CIT (A). Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Unexplained cash credit under section 68 - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We find that the amount received by the assessee as discussed above represents the sale consideration of the shares transferred by her to the parties aforesaid. The learned AR in support of his contention has filed the confirmation, shares transfer certificates and share purchase agreement along with the ledgers. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the finding of the learned CIT (A). In such a situation we have no alternate except to confirm the finding of the learned CIT (A). Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - CIT (A) was pleased to delete the addition made by the AO by observing that the assessee has discharged his onus by furnishing the necessary details as specified under section 68 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the assessee has discharged its onus by furnishing the necessary details such as a copy of PAN, passport, bank details, etc. in support of identity of the parties. There is also no dispute that all the transactions were carried out through the banking channel. Therefore, we are conscious of the fact that the assessee has discharged onus regarding the genuineness of the transactions. See ROHINI BUILDERS. [2001 (3) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Coming to the 3rd condition, i.e. creditworthiness of the parties, regarding this we note that the assessee claimed to have refunded part of the amount through banking channel to the aforesaid parties as discussed above. The repayment of the loan amount by the assessee was duly accepted by the Revenue. Therefore,there remains no doubt that the transactions of the advance received by the assessee from the parties were genuine - See ROHINI BUILDERS. [2001 (3) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] We also note that the assessee has furnished the source of the money received from the parties which was used for the purpose of investment in Yuva Sports Academy Pvt. Ltd. Once the assessee is able to prove that the money received by it was returned in the subsequent assessment year in the account of the party, then there remains no doubt that the loan and advances received by the assessee were not unexplained cash credit. Assessee furnished the sufficient documentary pieces of evidence including the details of the income of the parties which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. Therefore in our considered view, the assessee has discharged its onus imposed under section 68 - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition treating the agriculture income as income from other sources - HELD THAT:- Onus lies on the assessee to furnish the documentary evidence such as sales bills of the agriculture produce but he failed to do so. However in the present facts of the case we note that the assessee has been showing the agriculture income consistently which have been accepted by the revenue. Even the contention of the assessee that the inspector of Income Tax Department has also confirmed the fact of existence of the mango trees since 2007 which has not been doubted by the AO. Thus after considering the facts in totality and there being no adverse record brought by the learned DR contrary to the finding of the learned CIT (A), we do not find any reason to interfere in the order. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI]
|