9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held them to be unexplained deposits and brought forward to tax as income for the instant assessment year. 1.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the explanation tendered by the appellant to support the cash deposits was out of agricultural income and family savings of HUF which was quite reasonable and therefore, addition sustained is absolutely incorrect and untenable. 2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 35,73,050/- representing the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that once the entire capital gain wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in not directing the credit of tax of Rs. 80,000/- against the demand computed in the order of assessment dated 23.12.2016. 4. That various adverse findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are factually incorrect and contrary to record, legally misconceived and untenable. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that addition/disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed." 3. Return declaring income of Rs. 9,36,730/- was filed on 30/07/2014. During the course of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. The Assessing Officer accordingly held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act and that the capital gains amounting to Rs. 35,73,050/- was chargeable of tax. This amount was accordingly added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. As regards Ground No 1 to 1.1 the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a retired government employee of BSNL and his son and daughter-in-law are practicing doctors. In this regard the Ld. AR pointed out that the Assessee has filed Return of Income declaring gross total income at Rs. 10,38,062/- TDS certificate a/w Form 26AS. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid amount in the books of an assessee maintained for the previous year. The Ld. AR further submitted that a credit in the 'bank account' of an assessee cannot be construed as a credit in the 'books of the assessee" for the reason that the "bank account" are not the 'books of the assessee". In this regard assessee placed reliance on various decisions which are as follows: i) K.C.C. Software Ltd. and Ors. vs. DIT and Ors. 298 ITR 1 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 iii) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom) iv) Shanta Devi vs. CIT 171 ITR 532 (P&H) In view of these submissions, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made of Rs. 2,49,900/- may be deleted. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned in Section 68 of the Act. The assessee has given the details of cash deposits to the Assessing Officer as well as the same was produced before the CIT(A), but both the authorities ignored the same and sustained the addition under Section 68 of the Act which is not as per the provisions of the said Section. Thus, Ground No. 1 to 1.1 are allowed. 8. As regards Ground No. 2 to 2.5 related to addition made of Rs. 35,73,050/- which represented the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid claim is supported by following evidences which were produced before the Assessing Officer: A Evidence on Record i) Copy of evidence in respect of sale of flat No. B-7/703, Tulip Orange, Sector-70, Gurgaon on 28.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of house deposited in an account in a specified bank or institution, till that date only can be allowed as deduction u/s 54 of the IT Act. It is also a fact on record that the assessee had not utilized any amount towards purchase of plot by that date and no amount was utilized towards construction of house or deposited in an account in a specified bank or institution till the date of actually filing the return of income iii) That assessee had failed to construct the residential property within a period of three years from the date of sale of original asset. In fact the construction had not yet started as the assessee could not take possession of the plot under reference. In view of these facts also the assessee is not eligible for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
