ITAT grants exemption under sec 54F, deletes Rs. 17,00,000 addition under sec 68. Emphasizes prospective amendments.

The ITAT allowed the appeal, granting the exemption u/s 54F and deleting the addition of Rs. 17,00,000 under section 68. The judgment emphasized the prospective application of amendments and the necessity of proper examination of affidavits and documentary evidence before making additions under section 68.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act, amounting to Rs. 61,44,440.
2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,00,000 u/s 68 of the I.T.Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act:

The assessee, along with her two children, sold a vacant land in Bangalore North during the relevant assessment year and declared the sale proceeds in her return of income for A.Y. 2013-2014, claiming an exemption u/s 54F for a house property constructed at Hebbal, Bangalore. The assessment was completed by disallowing the exemption on the grounds that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence supporting the construction of the residential house.

Upon appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the denial of exemption, stating that the assessee built multiple residential units instead of one and that these units were let out rather than used by the assessee and her family. The assessee contended before the ITAT that the amendment to section 54F, which restricts the exemption to one residential house, was effective from 01.04.2015 and hence not applicable to her case. She relied on the Karnataka High Court judgment in Arun K Thiagarajan v. CIT.

The ITAT noted that prior to the amendment, the term "a residential house" was interpreted by courts to include multiple units. The Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma held that "a residential house" could mean multiple units and the amendment to section 54F was prospective, applicable from A.Y. 2015-16 onwards. Therefore, the ITAT concluded that the assessee was entitled to the exemption u/s 54F for the relevant assessment year, as the amendment did not apply to her case.

2. Addition of Rs. 17,00,000 u/s 68 of the I.T.Act:

The Assessing Officer (A.O.) made an addition of Rs. 35,00,000 as unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, stating that no documentary evidence was provided. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the source for Rs. 18,00,000 but sustained the addition for the remaining Rs. 17,00,000, questioning the source of these deposits.

The assessee explained the sources of the Rs. 17,00,000, including repayment of a loan by an agriculturist and cash received from relatives. She provided affidavits and confirmation letters from the involved parties. The CIT(A) did not accept these explanations and maintained the addition.

The ITAT noted that the A.O. did not address the source of the cash deposit in the remand report but only pointed out a violation of section 269SS, which pertains to the mode of accepting loans and deposits. The ITAT highlighted that violation of section 269SS calls for a penalty under section 271D, a separate proceeding, and cannot be the basis for an addition under section 68.

The ITAT referenced the Supreme Court decision in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, which held that an affidavit should not be rejected without cross-examination or a request for additional documentary evidence. Given that the affidavits and confirmation letters were not contested, the ITAT found the addition under section 68 to be unjustified and deleted it.

Conclusion:

The ITAT allowed the appeal, granting the exemption u/s 54F and deleting the addition of Rs. 17,00,000 under section 68. The judgment emphasized the prospective application of amendments and the necessity of proper examination of affidavits and documentary evidence before making additions under section 68.

---