Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 1096 - ITAT CHANDIGARHAddition u/s 68 or 56 - unexplained cash deposits - advance money received from Late buyer of property against the sale of property and subsequently returned - CIT(A) deletes the additions so made by the AO u/s 68 and has again brought the amount to tax under section 56(1) for non-availability of information on face of the balance sheet - HELD THAT:- We couldn’t find any show-cause issued on record or information sought from the assessee in this regard which has again prejudiced the case of the assessee by denying an opportunity before any adverse view is taken against her. In our analysis of the explanation so submitted by the assessee and material available on record in terms of entries in the cash book dated 23.12.2011, the agreement to sell dated 23.12.2011 which talks about earnest money out of total sale consideration of Rs 4.60 Cr, and the receipt issued by the assessee acknowledging receipt of Rs 30,00,000/- in presence of witness, thus we find that the assessee has reasonably explained the nature and source of cash deposit of Rs 30 lacs, being the advance towards the sale of the property owned by her. The property ownership and the agreement to sell has not been doubted by the Revenue. Mere non-appearance of the buyer who has since expired couldn’t be held against the assessee. Assessee has also explained the refund of the said amount to the buyer due to non-materialization of the sale transaction and subsequently getting a better deal at a higher sale consideration with another buyer vide registered agreement for a total consideration of Rs 4.80 Cr and out of which, an amount of Rs 30 lacs was refunded to the original buyer. The breakup of total consideration of Rs 4.80 Cr has been duly given in the registered sale deed dated 22.05.2012 and has been duly recorded in the books of accounts. AR has stated at the Bar that the sale consideration of Rs 4.80 Cr has been duly offered to tax in the subsequent assessment year. It is also not the case of the Revenue that there is any on-money received by the assessee over and above the declared sale consideration of Rs 4.80 Cr which also forms the basis for paying the stamp duty. In our overall analysis, we find that there is no basis for making the addition either under section 68 or under section 56(1) of the Act and the same is hereby directed to be deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.
|