TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... den, which the AO had doubted the source of deposit. There was a sale agreement which was entered into by the assessee with the purchaser for sale of 11 acres of rubber plantation in Kokkayar Village, Idukki District at the rate of Rs.55,750/- per cent. This was also brought on record by the assessee vide letter dated 29/02/2016. The Assessing Officer in disbelieving the evidence had not given any reasons whatsoever to discard the evidence placed by the assessee so as to explain the deposit of sale consideration into various Bank accounts It is also brought to our notice that there was no assessment in respect of the payment of the said on-money in the hands of the purchaser by the Department. These evidences led by the assessee cannot be discarded without any reasons. In view of this, we are inclined to hold that the deposits made by the assessee in the Bank accounts were duly explained by the assessee and it is to be accepted as genuine source of deposits as there was no counter evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No.508/Coch/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2019 - S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM AND GEORGE GEORGE K., JM Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- Total unexplained Income . Rs. 3,52,66,645/- 3.1 The assessee was asked to explain the source of deposits. In his reply the assessee stated that during April, 2005 the assessee and his wife Leelamma Abraham have entered into an agreement for sale of 11 acres of rubber plantation in Kokkayar Village, Idukki District at the rate of Rs.55,750/- per cent with Shri K.I. Zakir Hussain and others and they have received a sum of Rs.3,31,70,100/-. However, it was found that as per document, the value of this property sold on 29/11/2012 was as under: 1. P.V.Abraham Rs.16,07,500/- 2. Leelamma Abraham Rs. 7,43,600/- Total sale proceeds as per document Rs.23,51,100/- 3.2 As per details furnished by the assessee, the source available in the case of the assessee was as under: 1. Sale consideration of property as mentioned above: Rs.16,07,500/- 2. LIC Receipts Rs. 54,817/- 3. Agricultural receipts Rs.23,51 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcorp (A.T.) 55729. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer had not been able to point to any other source of income apart from sale of agricultural land and therefore, the deposits in the bank accounts were to be treated as proceed of sale of agricultural land and therefore, exempt from taxation. Thus, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.1,54,86,598/-. 5. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. DR tried to justify the order of the Assessing Officer on the issue and submitted that the onus lies solely on the assessee to establish the source of deposits in the Banks which the assessee has failed to establish and hence, the addition is to be sustained as unexplained income of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR stated that the assessee had been working in UAE for 36 years and returned to India in the year 2008. It was submitted that since the assessee had become aged, he was unable to manage rubber plantation at a distant location and sold the same for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,31,70,100/-. In order to prove that receipts were indeed from the sale of rubber plantation, the Ld. AR submitted the following documents before the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the impugned amount was received by the assessee from any other source. The deposition of the purchaser by way of an affidavit filed with the authorities had shown a higher value which was sufficient to discharge the burden, which the Assessing Officer had doubted the source of deposit. There was a sale agreement which was entered into by the assessee with the purchaser for sale of 11 acres of rubber plantation in Kokkayar Village, Idukki District at the rate of Rs.55,750/- per cent. This was also brought on record by the assessee vide letter dated 29/02/2016. The Assessing Officer in disbelieving the evidence had not given any reasons whatsoever to discard the evidence placed by the assessee so as to explain the deposit of sale consideration into various Bank accounts It is also brought to our notice that there was no assessment in respect of the payment of the said onmoney in the hands of the purchaser by the Department. In such circumstances, in our opinion, these evidences led by the assessee cannot be discarded without any reasons. In view of this, we are inclined to hold that the deposits made by the assessee in the Bank accounts were duly explained by the assessee an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt shown in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer has not disputed the source of cash receipts. Her only contention is that balance value of the property not shown in the sale deed can only be considered as unaccounted money/on-money and the same has to be brought to tax as 'income from other sources'. 7.2 In this context, it is important to refer to section 68 of the I.T. Act, which reads as follows-. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The above section has application when no explanation is offered or the explanation offered is not satisfactory in the opinion of Id. Assessing Officer. Further, by using the words may be charged , instead of shall be charged , it is clear that addition u/s. 68 is not mandatory. On the other hand the Assessing Officer has to apply his mind on facts of each case and decide whether the addition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
