TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agricultural operations which is common in joint families, we, do not find any reason to suspect the source of cash deposits in the bank account and the same stands explained, hence, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition made by the AO. Assessee s appeal on this ground is allowed. Unexplained deposits in the bank account - AO found mismatch of dates mentioned in the sale deed and withdrawals made by the vendor from his bank account and disbelieved the payment to the assessee and accordingly made the addition - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the vendor has confirmed the payment of ₹ 37,50,000/- on various dates and also filed rectification deed before the Ld.CIT(A). The AO and the Ld.CIT(A) were of the view that it was an afterthought. However, the rectification deed was registered before the SRO which is a valid piece of evidence. AO landed in a wrong confusion without considering the rectification deed. In the rectified deed, the vendor has clearly mentioned that a sum of ₹ 30,75,000/- was paid on 26.12.2013 and ₹ 6,75,000/- was paid on 13.1.2014 and the balance amount was paid on date of registration. The total sum pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of amount has confirmed the payment made to assessee on 28.12.2013. 3. In respect of addition of ₹ 6,75,000/- The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition both on facts and law without considering the submissions of assessee and the payee of the amounts though the payer of amount has confirmed the payment made to assessee on 13.01.2014. 4. The learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the additions of ₹ 30,75,000/- (as specified in Ground No.2) ₹ 6,75,000/- (as specified in Ground No.4) by holding that the correction to the original sale deed is an afterthought though the appellant has been claiming an error in the original sale deed in the assessment proceedings and appeal proceedings 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 6. It is prayed that the additions may be deleted and relief be granted. 2.1. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR has raised the additional ground as follows and filed petition for admission of additional ground. The Assessing officer committed error in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act while making the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eve the sources of agricultural income in the absence of corroborative evidence and viewed that though the amount was deposited on 13.07.2013, the assessee has not transferred back the amounts to the respective family members. Therefore, the AO was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and treated the entire cash deposit as unexplained credit and accordingly brought to tax u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ). 5. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. 6. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee along with family members owned 16 acres of agricultural land, wherein the mango garden was grown. The sale proceeds of mango crop were deposited in the bank account of the assessee. All the family members are joint family and the entire agricultural operations were looked after by him. As and when the sale proceeds are received, the assessee deposits the sale proceeds in his bank account and meet the expenditure. The AO also did not suspect the agricultu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sited in the bank account. The assessee has deposited the sum of ₹ 30,75,000/- in the bank account on 28.12.2013 and ₹ 6,75,000/- on 13.01.2014. When the AO asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit, the assessee explained that the source was on account of sale proceeds of the land admeasuring 235.55 sq.yds which was also offered for long term capital gains. The AO examined the sale deed and found that there was a mismatch of dates of payment and dates of deposit in the bank account as per the sale deed. The assessee explained that he had received the sum of ₹ 30,75,000/- on 26.12.2013 which was deposited in the bank on 28.12.2013. The AO examined the bank account of the vendor and found that there were withdrawals in the bank account from 26.06.2013 ranging from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 15,00,000/- as under : Date Self cash withdrawal Rs. 26.6.2013 9,00,000 4.7.2013 3,28,000 18.7.2013 1,20,000 22.7.2013 4,00,000 23.7.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the lower authorities and allow the appeal of the assessee. 12. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO made the addition of ₹ 30,75,000/- and ₹ 6,75,000/-, aggregating to ₹ 37,50,000/- which was deposited in the bank account and brought to tax as unexplained cash credit as addition u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. The AO found mismatch of dates mentioned in the sale deed and withdrawals made by the vendor from his bank account and disbelieved the payment to the assessee and accordingly made the addition. In the instant case, the vendor has confirmed the payment of ₹ 37,50,000/- on various dates and also filed rectification deed before the Ld.CIT(A). The AO and the Ld.CIT(A) were of the view that it was an afterthought. However, the rectification deed was registered before the SRO which is a valid piece of evidence. The AO landed in a wrong confusion without considering the rectification deed. In the rectified deed, the vendor has clearly mentioned that a sum of ₹ 30,75,000/- was paid on 26.12.2013 and ₹ 6,75,000/- was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
