9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly facts of the case are that the assessee appellant is an individual and filed his return on 06-07-2017 declaring an income of Rs. 38,53,2507/-. During the assessment proceedings all the required documents were submitted before the AO. However, the AO being not satisfied, the assessment has been framed by computing the income at Rs. 1,96,53,250/- on the ground that the amount received on sale of agriculture land was unexplained credit in the books of accounts of the assessee appellant. 4. Being aggrieved, with the assessment order, assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT appeal who has confirmed the addition by observing as under: 5.2 Ground No. 2: Vide this ground of appeal, appellant has challenged the findings of Assessing Officer wherein AO has made addition of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit in the books of the appellant despite furnishing relevant material on record and explaining the credit in detail. The appellant has stated that such decision is unjustified and uncalled for. 5.3 I have duly considered the assessment order and reply filed by the appellant during the appellate proceeding. From the perusal of assessment order it is seen that AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay. Further, the AO has given hisclear cut findings that this happened on 8 instances and whole of Rs. 1.5 crore is shown to be received in F.Y. 2015-16. Further, it is pertinent and relevant to note the findings of AO in his assessment order wherein he has stated as "selling of agricultural land at much higher rate than collector rate and deposit of cash in the bank account of purchaser followed by transfer to assessee account and moreover claiming the income as exempt clearly shows that assessee is trying to introduce its own cash in the garb of sale of agriculture land and then claiming it as exempt agricultural income". 5.6. From the perusal of assessment order and explanation offered by appellant, it is seen that appellant has failed to substantiate its claim of exempt agricultural income amounting to Rs. 1.58 crores. The AO has made a clear cut case of introduction of own money from undisclosed sources in the garb of exempt agricultural income which is further evident from the fact that Shri Kesar Singh had no funds in F.Y. 2014-15 and suddenly there was cash deposit in his bank account followed by immediate transfer on the same date to the account of appellant Shri Suresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encashed, and after prolonged negotiations, fresh cheques have been received during the relevant A.Y., amounting to Rs. 1,58,00,000/- against Rs. 1,98,00,000 as per the registry. 4. It is submitted that the said agricultural land was a rural agricultural land, and the same has been accepted by the Ld.AO and the Worthy CIT(A) has not drawn any adverse inference of the same. 5. Thus the said agriculture land was not a capital asset and the same was not required to be disclosed in the ITR form. 6. The addition has been made in respect of the said payment received from the buyer on account of the sale proceeds of the rural agricultural land which was received in the relevant assessment year as the earlier cheques as per the title deed could not be encashed. 7. It is not the case of the assessee that the amount has been received as an afterthought as the said deed was registered earlier. It is also clarified that in the said sale deed it has been clearly mentioned that the responsibility for clearance of the cheques is of the buyer. Moreover, the said registry has duly been executed in front of the appropriate authority which has photograph of both the buyer and the seller 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 16,500. Therefore, on the construction placed by us, subsection (2) had no application to the present case and the ITO could have no reason to believe that any part of the income of the assessee had escaped assessment so as to justify the issue of a notice under section 148. The order of reassessment made by the ITO pursuant to the notice issued under section 148 was accordingly without jurisdiction and the majority judges of the Full Bench were in error in refusing to quash it. " 11. The department has time and time again failed to prove why the said consideration received by the assessee is not on account of sale consideration and how the same takes the character of the assessee's own money without any cogent evidence. 12. Therefore, the genuineness of the sale deed and the consideration received by the assessee cannot be denied. 13. Therefore, the sale deed is genuine and the department has not been able to prove any other consideration received by the assessee in respect of the said registry then the impugned amount received by the assessee from the buyer cannot be alleged to be otherwise than the consideration amount for the sale of the property. 14. Furthermore, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, in which, it has been held as under:- "In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the genuineness of transactions stands established. The amounts have been advanced through account payee cheques and we find no merit in the addition being made on this account. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s ChuniLal [211 ITR (ST) 11] had held that cash credits received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. In the facts of present case, father of assessee has proved the availability of cash in hands. The requirement of law is not to prove the source of source of cash credit. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 35 Lacs credited to the books of the assessee, being on account of loan received from the father of the assessee. Thus, the grounds No.8 & 9 raised by the assessee are allowed. " d. Shri Timple Kumar vs ITO, Malerkotla in ITA No. 509/Chd/2013 dtd 16.07.2015 Therefore, the addition made in the case of the assessee is uncalled for since the impugned amount received by the assessee during the year under consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been received as the assessee had given an asset in exchange for such consideration and thus, it is not the case of any deposit or loan. 10. In the present case, although it was not the responsibility of the assessee to prove the sources of such funds even then the assessee has filed the bank statement of the buyer starting from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016, and the said bank statement clearly reflects that the buyer was a man of means and having regularly deposits in crores were being received by the said buyer in the earlier years also, and therefore it cannot be alleged that the buyer has no funds. Meaning thereby that the assessee has duly furnished evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the buyer and the genuineness of the transaction, and even then, if the Ld. AO or department has any apprehension in respect of the same, then they are free to open the case of the buyer. 11. Considering the factual matrix and judicial precedents, we hold that the requirement of law is not to prove the source of source of cash credit. Accordingly, we hold that the alleged credit of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- stands explained and as such, the addition is deleted. 12. In the result, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
