Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 32 - AT - Income TaxComputation of long term capital gains from transfer of property - AO came to the conclusion that cash consideration claimed by the assessee is nothing but income from unexplained source - whether cash consideration claims to have been received for transfer of property or income from undisclosed source? - reason given by the AO for the simple reason that the assessee (HUF) does not own any other property except the property sold during the impugned assessment year - HELD THAT:- When the assessee has claimed that it has received sale consideration in cash for transfer of property, it is for the AO to disprove the claim of the assessee with cogent reason and sufficient evidences. In this case, the AO has simply gone on the basis of Sale Deed executed by the assessee and also statement of the buyer of the property. It is accepted but not admitted fact that there is a vast difference between guideline value of the property and market value of the property and the guideline value of the property not necessarily be Fair Market Value of the property. In the present case, consideration shown in the Sale Deed is more or less equivalent to guideline value of the property fixed by the Stamp Duty Authority as on the date of sale. Therefore, if you consider the arguments of the assessee in light of prevailing fact that there will be a difference between guideline value of the property and Fair Market Value of the property, then, the claim of the assessee that it has received cash consideration cannot be doubted, more particularly if you consider the location of the property - There is no error in the reasons given by the Ld.CIT(A) to accept the arguments of the assessee that it has received sale consideration for sale of property, even though, the Sale Deed shown only ₹ 2.50 Crs. and also the buyer has denied having paid any cash consideration. Hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the Revenue. Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) after taking into consideration various facts has given categorical findings that the source for cash deposit into assessee’s bank account is out of distribution of assets by HUF and thus, there is no reason to the AO to disbelieve the claim of the assessee that the source for cash deposit is out of amount received from HUF. We find that the reasons given by the Ld.CIT(A) to delete the addition made by the AO, cannot be faulted, because the Revenue has failed to bring on record any evidences to counter the findings of the facts recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
|