9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case. 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was right in allowing the assessee's appeal holding the facts and circumstances of the case as identical to the case of ITO vs. Dr. Koshy George, reported in (2009) 317 ITR (AT) 116(Cochin) decided by the ITAT, Cochin Bench as in the case the transactions were not through banking channels. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee without any evidence in support of his claim that the entire cash receipt of Rs. 80 lakhs was the sale consideration of agricultural land especially the registered document showed a lesser price. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in treating the entire cash deposits were sale consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervation of the Assessing Officer reads as follows: "When requested to explain the source of these deposits, the assessee vide his letter dated 30/11/2015 has stated that all these deposits are sale proceeds of agricultural land of his wife, Smt. Alice Abraham and himself at Athikkayam, Pathanamthitta but on verification of the documents filed by the assessee, it was noticed that the sale proceeds of land as per the sale deed is only Rs. 30,59,500/-. An agricultural income of Rs. 10,40,500/- was also declared in the return of income filed by the assessee and his wife for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2013-14 but no documentary evidence has been filed to show the source for the balance deposit of Rs. 39,00,000/-. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a part of receipt on account of sale of agricultural land. It was contended that the Assessing Officer has erred in bringing the same to tax as income from other sources. It was further contended before the CIT(A) that in the return of income filed in the case of the assessee and his wife, the entire sale consideration on sale of agricultural land was disclosed, namely, Rs. 70,79,500/-. The CIT(A), by following the order of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Dr. Koshy George (2009) 317 ITR (AT) 116 (Cochin) held that the amount deposited in the bank account is the sale proceeds of agricultural land and is not liable to be taxed as 'income from other sources'. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows: "I h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incidence of tax. In his support, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of ITO vs. Koshy George, reported in (2009) 317 ITR (AT) 116 (Cochin), wherein, the Honourable Bench held that any surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would always partake the character of agricultural income itself. The consideration stated in the Registered Sale Deed was agricultrual income. Likewise, "the on money" also should be treated as agricultural income. Since the facts of the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of Jurisdictional ITAT Cochin in the decision discussed above, addition of Rs. 39,00,000/- is hereby deleted." 5. The Revenue being aggrieved is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the intricacies of tax laws in India. The admitted fact is that the assessee alongwith his wife had 7.01 acres of agricultural land which was cultivated with Rubber and was having Rubber Board registration. The sale proceeds of the said agricultural land is not a capital asset as per section 2(14) of the I.T. Act. This fact is also accepted by the Assessing Officer, by not taxing the sale consideration of Rs. 30,59,500/- disclosed in the sale deed. 7.1 According to the assessee, the total sale consideration is Rs. 70,79,500/- and because of insistence of the buyer to save stamp duty, the sale consideration was disclosed in the sale deed at Rs. 30,59,500/-. It was stated that Rs. 30,59,500/- was circle rate fixed by the Kerala Government. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T. Act, which reads as follows: "Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year." The above section has application when no explanation is offered or the explanation offered is not satisfactory in the opinion of ld. Assessing Officer. Further, by using the words "may be charged", instead of "shall be charged, it is clear that addition u/s. 68 is not mandatory. On the other hand the Assessing Officer has to apply h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
