9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found to have deposited cash of Rs. 19,14,000/- in his bank account maintained with Shivajirao Bhosale Sah. Bank. On being called upon to explain the source of deposits, the assessee submitted that he was engaged in the wholesale and retail business and the deposits were made out of cash sales effected during the year amounting to Rs. 1.26 crore. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed from the bank passbook that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 9,80,000/- on 19-11-2009 and of Rs. 3,30,000/- on 23-11-2009 totalling Rs. 13,10,000/-. In his opinion, the assessee failed to properly explain the source of such deposits. He, therefore, made addition for such an amount, which came to be affirmed in the first appeal. 4. We have heard both the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO would be free to proceed as per law. 5. The next ground is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 10,75,920/- on account of cost of improvement. 6. The facts apropos this issue are that the assessee sold shop at Market Yard for Rs. 35,18,382/-. This shop was purchased on 23-07-2007 for a sum of Rs. 22,40,000/-. The assessee claimed cost of improvement at Rs. 10,75,920/-. In support of such cost of improvement, the assessee filed a letter of M/s. S.S. Rathi Developers dated 02-06-2009, which was in the nature of bill for carrying out work in respect of the property sold. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not furnish the date and mode of payment to M/s. S.S. Rathi Developers. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion u/s.54F to the tune of Rs. 58,44,849/- on the ground that he purchased one residential property. The AO denied the benefit of exemption by relying on sub-clause (ii) of proviso (a) to section 54F of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO by observing that though the property purchased at Bibvewadi, Hyde park on 08-03-2010 was sold on 21-06-2010, but the assessee was having a separate house also at Rathi Niwas, Loni Kalbhor, Tal. Haveli, Pune. He did not accept the contention of the assessee for grant of exemption u/s.54F in relation to the agreement of purchase made on 28-09-2010. 10. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is observed that the assessee sold agricultural land on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune. Impliedly, he relied on sub-clause (i) of clause (a) to proviso of section 54F. This provision states that the benefit of exemption would not be available where the assessee: `owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset'. Thus the benefit of exemption as per this provision can be denied if the assessee owns two or more residential houses on the date or transfer of original asset, including the new asset for which the exemption is claimed. The balance sheet of the assessee as on 31-03-2010, whose copy has been placed at page 7 of the paper book, shows the flat at Hyde Park, which was purchased on 08-03-2010 but sold after the close of the year on 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
