Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 120 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 68 - unexplained cash credits - Advance received by the assessee from 18 parties - CIT-A vacated the addition made by the A.O u/s. 68 - HELD THAT:- We concur with the CIT(Appeals) that the failure on the part of the stamp vendor to properly maintain his records could not have on such standalone basis justified drawing of adverse inferences as regards the genuineness of the transactions under consideration which the assessee had duly substantiated on the basis of supporting documentary evidence. Also, we are persuaded to subscribe to the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) that now when both the parties to the respective "agreements to sell" had confirmed the transactions, then, due weightage was required to be given to their respective statements and the same could not have been brushed aside merely on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of the stamp vendor who had declined of having sold the stamp papers in question. The assessee in order to substantiate the authenticity of his claim of having received an advance of Rs. 128.50 lac from the aforementioned 18 parties had filed with the A.O duly notarized "affidavits" of all the aforementioned 18 parties who had admitted of having advanced the respective amounts to the assessee for purchase of land at Village Urkura, Phase No. 108, RIC, Raipur (C.G), Kh No. 100/2, Page 252 to 318 of APB. Also, the respective parties in their 'affidavits' had categorically given the reasons for cancelling the deal and receiving back of the advance/earnest money from the assessee. On a perusal of the aforesaid "affidavits", it transpires that all of the said parties were being assessed to tax and had categorically mentioned their PAN in their respective depositions. A.R rebutting the aforesaid claim of the A.O had stated that 8 parties had though appeared before the A.O, however, he had recorded the statements of only 2 parties who had in their respective statements confirmed the transactions in question. It is further the claim of the ld. A.R that the assessee was never intimated by the A.O about the fact that the notices issued to some of the parties were returned unserved. In our considered view though the assessee had duly substantiated the authenticity of the transactions of having received advances from 18 parties (supra), but the A.O had failed to dislodge the same by placing on record any such material which would irrefutably disprove the authenticity of the said claim. Also, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the A.O that the authenticity of the transaction was to be summarily rejected on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of Shri Zafar Ali, Stamp vendor. We, thus,finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who in our considered view had rightly vacated the addition made by the A.O u/s. 68 of the Act uphold his order to the said extent. Advance received from M/s. Tirthyatra Investment & Properties Ltd. for sale of land - As the assessee on the basis of irrefutable documentary evidences had duly substantiated his claim of having received the advance/earnest money from the aforementioned party, viz. M/s. Tirthayatra Investment & Properties Ltd., Raipur, and thus, discharged the primary onus that was cast upon it to prove the nature and source of the credit in its books of account, while for the A.O had absolutely failed to dislodge the authenticity of the said claim on the basis of any material proving to the contrary, therefore, there was no justification for the A.O to have dubbed the amount so received by the assessee as an unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act - Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly vacated the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) - HELD THAT:- As no disallowance u/s. 14A in absence of any exempt income could have been made in the hands of the assessee. We, thus, in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case before us r/w. the aforesaid settled position of law find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that now when the assessee company had not received any exempt dividend income during the year under consideration, therefore, no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act was warranted in its case.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|