Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 171 - ITAT CHENNAIAddition towards amount paid for purchase of property - unexplained money u/s.69A - addition on the basis of loose sheets find in search - basis for additions is search conducted in the case of Shri E.Anandan, husband of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We reject reasons given by the CIT(A) to enhance the assessment on the basis of incriminating materials found during the course of search - explanation of the assessee that advance mentioned in sale agreement between the assessee and Mr. K.Thangavelu was paid by Mr.Ashok Kumar and make over to the assessee is proved beyond doubt with necessary evidences, including confirmation letter from the party - assessee had also proved fact that she had repaid a sum of ₹ 1 crore to Shri Ashok Kumar, out of sale proceeds of property at Chennai by her husband Mr. E.Anandan is also proved beyond doubt which is evidenced from fact that although, the purchaser had paid sale consideration of ₹ 90 lakhs by demand draft / RTGS, but Mr. E.Anandan has withdrawn amount from his bank account which clearly proves that money has been used to make payment to Shri Ashok Kumar. Therefore, we are of the considered view that additions made by the Assessing Officer towards advance payment made to Mr. K.Thangavelu on the basis of sale agreement dated 07.02.2014 is not correct. Addition of ₹ 10 lakhs cash advance claims to have been paid by M/s.Green Home Landscape Pvt Ltd. to Shri Thangavelu on the ground that this amount has gone from undisclosed source of Mrs.Latha. We find that when the agreement clearly shows that payment has been made by M/s.Green Home Landscape Pvt. Ltd., same cannot be attributed to the assessee and thus, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) has erred in making addition in the hands of the assessee. Similarly, CIT(A) has made additions towards entries recorded in some loose sheets on the ground that the assessee has paid cash to Mr. K.Thangavelu for purchase of property. As no additions can be made only on the basis of loose sheets, when the assessee demonstrated with evidence that the property has been purchased for the stated consideration in the agreement of sale and further registered deed executed for transferring title also confirms consideration paid for purchase of property. Therefore, we are of the considered view that enhancement made by the learned CIT(A) on the basis of entries in loose papers cannot be sustained. Hence, we reverse findings of the learned CIT(A) and delete enhancement made by the learned CIT(A). Unexplained cash credits in the bank account of the assessee - explanation of the assessee that these cash deposits were payment made for purchase of property at Vadavalli and thus, when the AO has made addition towards investments in purchase of property, once again addition towards cash deposits found in bank account amounts to double addition - HELD THAT:- We find that except stating that the Assessing Officer has already made additions towards investments made in property, the assessee could not file any documentary evidence to explain cash deposits found in bank account. Further, additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained investments in purchase of property has been deleted by holding that the assessee has explained source for investments out of borrowings from banks, loan from friends and relatives and various other loans from banks. However, with regard to cash deposits found in bank account on various dates, the assessee could not file any satisfactory explanation. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to make additions towards cash deposits found in the bank account u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, we are inclined to uphold findings of learned CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee.
|