TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess which has been challenged by the Revenue is satisfied in the instant case. The decisions relied upon by the ld DR are distinguishable on facts - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) - adopting the valuation of property taken by the registering authority - scope of amendment - Held tat:- The provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are amended, by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 1-4-2014, so as to provide that where any immovable property is received by an individual or a HUF for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding ₹ 50,000, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration, shall be chargeable to tax in the hands of the individual or the HUF as income from other sources In the instant case, the assessee has entered into a registered sale deed on 1.11.2013 which effectively means he has lawfully received the immovable property in terms of title and possession though for an inadequate consideration on 01.11.2013 which falls during the financial year 2013-14 relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The provisions of section 56(vii)(b)(ii) are thus clearly applicable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the Audit report. The A/R is silent in the submission about the defects pointed out by the Assessing officer in the assessment order. Therefore I am the view that the Assessing officer rightly rejected the books of account by applying the provisions u/s 145(3) of the IT Act. Hence I upheld the action of the Assessing Officer rejection of the books of accounts. The next issue is estimation of Net profit. The Assessing officer made the addition of ₹ 50,000/- without giving any reason. The A/R of the appellant submitted that the trading report of 3 year are as under:- Assessment Year Turnove Gross GP 2014-15 7314914 1356609 18.55% 2013-14 13123932 1735794 13.23% 2012-13 9331400 1585468 16.99% I perused the record I find that the G.P. in this year is better as compare to the earlier year but the turnover in this year is ₹ 73,14,914/- as c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has challenged the addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The relevant facts and findings of ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- 5.3 I have carefully considered the observation made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, submission filed by the A/R of the appellant and cited case laws. I find that appellant has taken ₹ 2,50,000/-from Smt. Santosh Devi Jangir and the Assessing officer treated ₹ 2,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The A/R of the appellant submitted that the assessee has submitted copy of confirmation, ITR and computation of income of cash creditor Smt Santosh Devi Jangir who is also assessed to income tax with Income Tax Officer, ward - 7(3), Jaipur and regularly filing income tax return. Copy of bank passbook was also furnished before the Learned Assessing Officer. She has deposited ₹ 2,50,000/- in her bank account. The immediate source of cash deposit in bank account is out of dairy agriculture income and cash saving. The bifurcation of cash received was as under:- Opening cash balance Rs .7,86,50/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income of cash creditor Smt Santosh Devi Jangir who is also assessed to income tax with Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Jaipur and regularly filing income tax return. Copy of bank passbook was also furnished before the Learned Assessing Officer. She has deposited ₹ 2,50,000/- in her bank account. The immediate source of cash deposit in bank account is out of dairy agriculture income and cash saving. The bifurcation of cash received was as under: - (i) Opening cash balance ₹ 78650/- (ii) Sale of milk of April-May-June ₹ 92000/- (iii) Recovery from debtors ₹ 32000/- (iv) Sale of Crop in April ₹ 46500/- (v) Sale of Crop in May ₹ 12200/- Total Rs.261,350/- All the papers are also enclosed herewith. But the Learned Assessing Officer has not considered all the papers in right prespective and because the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank account of ₹ 2,50,000. In the result, necessary onus in terms of creditworthiness which has been challenged by the Revenue is satisfied in the instant case. The decisions relied upon by the ld DR are distinguishable on facts as in those cases, the source of cash deposits was not explained which is not the case before us. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed. 11. Regarding Ground No. 3, the facts and the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- 6.3 I have carefully considered the material before me. I find that the appellant himself has admitted the addition, these is no dispute in the matter as per the sale deed dated 01.11.2013 the sub-register Ajmer Jaipur has adopted the sale value of the property for the purpose of stamp duty at ₹ 6,85,313/- as against the sale consideration of ₹ 4,00,000/-, therefore, the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are clearly applicable in the assessee case. As per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the assessee is liable to be charge income tax on the amount exceeds to the sale consideration as compared to the stamp duty value. The submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
