TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut section 50C is not applicable in respect of acquisition of property and amendment in section 56(1) has been made by the Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01/04/2014 as per which, if any immovable property is purchased for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding ₹ 50,000/-, addition should be made as income in respect of stamp duty value of such property in excess of the stated consideration. Hence, the provisions of section 56(1)(vii)(b) are not applicable in the present year because the same are applicable from assessment year 2014-15. In the similar manner, for the remaining properties also, the basis of CIT(A) is that market value for stamp duty purposes is higher than the value of consideration paid by the assessee as per purchase deed but such an addition in the present year is not sustainable in the eyes of law unless evidence is brought on record to show that extra price was paid by the assessee to acquire the property in question. In the present case, no such evidence has been brought on record by the A.O. to show that extra price was paid by the assessee to acquire the property in question. Hence, we delete t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the addition u/s 68 is not justified.- Decided in favour of assessee Addition as Sundry Creditors for expenses - Held that:- In Para 6.6, the CIT(A) has noted down three outstanding amounts of ₹ 1,37,217/- from Vijaya Bank, ₹ 86,500/- from HDFC Bank and ₹ 96,954/- from Standard Chartered Bank. The relevant bank statements are available in paper book to which our attention was drawn and therefore, these three credit amounts has to be accepted as explained. Regarding the balance amount of ₹ 2.10 lac, it is noted by CIT(A) that this amount was stated to be not traceable. Hence, we confirm this amount of ₹ 2.10 lac and delete the balance amount of ₹ 3,20,715/-.- Decided partly in favour of assessee - ITA Nos.381 & 382/Lkw/2015, ITA No.383/Lkw/2015 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2016 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Yogesh Agrawal, Advocate For The Revenue : Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. Out of this bunch of three appeals for the same assessment year i.e. 2007-08, there are two appeals of the assessee, out of which one is arising out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer says that the assessee has shown investment under various heads, such as land and building ₹ 294.65 lac, fixed assets of ₹ 13,85,948/- and current assets and loans advances ₹ 97,96,630/- in his balance sheet as on 31/03/2007. As per the balance sheet, available on page No. 23 also, the same three investments are appearing, total of which comes to ₹ 4,06,47,615.67. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer says in Para No. 5 of the assessment order that on being asked to furnish the explanation regarding investment under these heads, the assessee replied to have shown these figures on the basis of assumption and stated to furnish the details in a day or two, which he failed to furnish. After making this observation, the Assessing Officer made addition of 20% of total investment and in this manner, he made addition of ₹ 81,29,500/-. In the impugned order, it is stated by CIT(A) that the assessee is purchasing the properties at fraction of market value and in some cases, by making payment of token advance. He has noted down some instances on page No. 23 of his order, as per which a property at Hydergarh Barabanki was purchased as per deed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any immovable property is purchased for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding ₹ 50,000/-, addition should be made as income in respect of stamp duty value of such property in excess of the stated consideration. Hence, the provisions of section 56(1)(vii)(b) are not applicable in the present year because the same are applicable from assessment year 2014-15. In the similar manner, for the remaining properties also, the basis of CIT(A) is that market value for stamp duty purposes is higher than the value of consideration paid by the assessee as per purchase deed but such an addition in the present year is not sustainable in the eyes of law unless evidence is brought on record to show that extra price was paid by the assessee to acquire the property in question. In the present case, no such evidence has been brought on record by the A.O. to show that extra price was paid by the assessee to acquire the property in question. Hence, we delete this addition. Accordingly, ground No. 1 2 are allowed. 7. Ground No. 3 4 are inter-connected, which read as under: III. The Ld. CIT (A)'s further grossly erred on facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o reported that Sri Virendra Kumar grandson of Shri Maiku lal confirmed that as per his knowledge, there was agreement between late Shri Maiku Lal and the present assessee to pay ₹ 50,000/- per month for agricultural land of about 17 18 bighas. Regarding the statement of Shri Ram Karan, the A.O. reported that he stated that he paid only ₹ 52,000/- per anumn to the present assessee for agricultural land of 12 bighas. In this regard, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that amount of ₹ 52,000/- is correct but the same is per month and not per anumn and on this aspect, there is either a mistake committed by the A.O. in the remand report or by Shri Ram Karan while recording his statement before the A.O. because he is an illiterate person. We find force in this contention because when the agreements are for per anumn payment and one party is confirming payment of ₹ 50,000/- per month for 17 18 bighas, the payment by second party of ₹ 50,000/- for 12 bighas cannot be per anumn and it should be accepted as per month. Hence this amount of ₹ 12.24 Lacs received from these two persons deserves to be accepted. Now the question is how much ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment has been made later by way of account payee cheques, addition is not justified u/s 68 of the Act. He also submitted that this is alleged that the assessee has not given details about mode of receipt of unsecured loans from Shri C. P. Goel. He submitted that in this regard, on page No. 26 of the paper book, the details are given regarding cheque number, amount and name of bank along with date of receipt of loan of ₹ 7 lac. In addition to this, he submitted a copy of bank statement of the lender Shri C. P. Goel for the period from 20/05/2006 till 25/03/2013 and in that, he pointed out that on 22/07/2006, he had issued a cheque of ₹ 35,000/- and on 28/06/2006, he had issued a cheque of ₹ 2.40 lac. He submitted that out of total loan of ₹ 39.50 lacs, the assessee is able to provide details of cheque Number etc. to the extent of ₹ 9,75,000/-. Regarding the balance amount also, he submitted that the same is also by way of cheques but the relevant details and bank statement of the assessee and lenders are not traceable and the lender is sick. He submitted that the remand report is available on pages 421 to 425 of the Paper Book and the relevant page is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifiable. He has also observed that even if the explanation of the assessee is accepted, he is liable to imposition of penalty u/s 271D for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act and merely because the amount of ₹ 45.40 lac has been repaid to Shri C. P. Goel by cheques of Vijaya Bank between 25/11/2010 to 08/05/2013, it is not sufficient to prove that the identity and capacity of the lender and genuineness of loan transaction of ₹ 39.50 lac is established. On this basis, CIT(A) has sustained this addition of ₹ 39.50 lac. We are in agreement with learned CIT (A) that subsequent refund is immaterial for deciding the applicability of section 68 but about non furnishing of details such as cheque nos. etc., we feel that only because details of Cheque Nos. etc. could not be provided by the lender because of his bad health position, no adverse inference can be drawn. The assessee has brought on record copy of one bank statement of the lender being bank account No.685225100200092 with Bank of India, Indira Nagar Branch and we find that before clearing of cheque of ₹ 2.40 lac on 28/06/2006, there is deposit of ₹ 3.90 lac on the same date by way of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A)'s grossly erred on facts and in law in partly conforming the unsecured loans for an amount of ₹ 12,41,524/- and in not accepting the loans outstanding of State Bank of India for an amount of ₹ 9,60,000/- and Standard Chartered Bank of ₹ 2,81,000/- despite the fact that the statements were duly filed and the balances are duly verifiable and thus the confirmation of an amount of ₹ 12,41,524/- is wholly unjustified against all settled principles of law and justice may kindly be ordered to be deleted. 19. It was submitted by Learned A. R. of the assessee that the details of unsecured loans from others of ₹ 1,41,24,552.47 shown in the balance sheet available on page No. 23 of the paper book and as per the same, the amount of ₹ 12,41,524/- for which addition has been upheld by CIT(A) is in respect of loan from State Bank of India, Ashok Marg Branch of ₹ 9.60 lac and Standard Chartered Bank of ₹ 28,15,370/-. He submitted that for these two loans, the addition upheld by CIT(A) is not justified. 20. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the order of learned CIT(A). 21. We have considered the rival submissions. We find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained. Regarding the balance amount of ₹ 2.10 lac, it is noted by CIT(A) that this amount was stated to be not traceable. Hence, we confirm this amount of ₹ 2.10 lac and delete the balance amount of ₹ 3,20,715/-. This ground is partly allowed. 26. Ground No. 9 is as under: IX. The Ld. AO further grossly erred on facts and in law in conforming the addition of ₹ 35,25,000/- by disallowing the agricultural income so claimed and in treating the same to be from undisclosed sources and adding it under the head Other Sources only on notions, conjectures and surmises. 27. This ground is same as ground No. 3 4 in I.T.A. No.382/Lkw/2015. It was submitted by Learned A. R. of the assessee that in the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer should have started with the amount of income assessed in the assessment order u/s 143(3) but the Assessing Officer has started with the income assessed by the assessee in return of income and therefore, as on date there are two assessed income; one as per order u/s 143(3) and other as per order u/s 147 of the Act, which is not proper. He submitted that proper direction should be given that the income should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
