TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey - Held that:- The assessee made the same plea before us that sale deed was a mistake that it was a normal practice to note in such a manner in sale deed. The AO should be given a credit to the amount received from those parties. As rightly pointed out by the ld. Assessing Officer that the transaction took place on 23.03.2007 and the assessee received the amount of ₹ 5 lakhs by cash on 23.03.2007 and the amount was deposited on 28.09.06 which was prior to the receipt of money and the explanation of assessee that the same money was deposited earlier to receipt of the amount, which is impossible and impracticable. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is rejected. Invoking the provisions of the section 50C - Held that:- T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri G. Pavan Kumar, Judicial Member Assessee by : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate Revenue by : Mr.Supriya Pal, JCIT, D.R ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These cross appeals filed by the assessee the Revenue and the appeal of Revenue are directed against the different order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore dated 24.09.2013 passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and dated 12.08.2010 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act respectively pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. First we take up ITA No.1730/Mds./2010 2. The first ground is with regard to confirming the addition of ₹ 1,75,000/- out of ₹ 2,47,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer towards unexplained deposit into bank account. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an in the name of assessee to the tune of ₹ 60,000/- ( 30,000/- + 30,000/-). Out of the above, considered balance of ₹ 2,47,000/- as unexplained deposit in the hands of assessee and made addition. On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) considered the loan repayment from Mr. Babu (Rs. 35,000/-) and from Mr.Chinnasamy (Rs. 85,000/-) totaling of ₹ 85,000/- as source of deposit into bank account and had given relief to the assessee to the tune of ₹ 85,000/- out of ₹ 2,47,000/- and sustained the balance amount of ₹ 1,75,000/- ( actually it should be ₹ 1,62,000/- instead of ₹ 1,75,000/-). Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) had given a relief of ₹ 85,000/-. Once again, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, ld.A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has deposited ₹ 4 lakhs on 10.10.2006 to assessee s bank account. The assessee explained that source of said deposits as follows:- Family drawings 1,30,000 Agricultural income 1,00,000 Rental income 70,000 Jewel Loan 1,00,000 The AO had not accepted the above mentioned amount and accepted the following amount from the following sources. Family drawings 1,30,000 As there is no evidence Agricultural income 1,00,000 Rental income 54,000- 16,000 not accepted Jewel Loan 1,00,000 not accepted Thus, the AO accepted only ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was received from Mr.Krishnasamy - ₹ 2 lakhs and Mr.Vaduganathan - ₹ 2 lakhs for the power executed for the land of S.F No.10/1B of Orattukuppai. The AO observed that the said transaction has been taken place on 23.03.2007 and the said amount was received by cash on 23.03.2007 in the presence to independent witnesses. Hence, the assessee cannot claim that the money was received by the assessee on 23.03.2007 was deposited on bank account on 28.09.2006, which was prior to the stated date of receipt. Accordingly, the AO rejected the same. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the head capital gains in the assessment year under consideration. Judicial discipline requires consistency in its proceedings, we are inclined to confirm the invoking of provisions of the section 50C of the Act in respect of sale of properties so as to compute capital gains. This ground raised by assessee stands rejected. 12. The fifth issue is with regard to non allowing of expenditure incurred by the assessee as commission towards purchase and sale of land at ₹ 2,15,000/-. 12.1 According to assessee, paid commission of 2% on sale value of property and it is to be allowed. The claim of assessee was rejected on the reason that assessee has not produced requisite evidence for allowing that expenditure. After considering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
