TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in stating that 50C of the Income Tax Act, is not applicable in this transaction despite AO stating that the assessee runs a kirana store and is never having business activity of building construction. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition on Redeposit to Rs.25,000/-as against Rs.7,50,000/- made by the Assessing officer. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on cash deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of running general stores. For the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount was deposited was submitted by the appellant. He further submitted that if the A.O. wanted to conduct necessary enquiries for ascertaining correctness of the claim, he should have summoned the seller and conducted necessary verification. After considering the submissions of the assessee FAA directed the A.O. to discuss this issue with the appellant after giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard and take his objections on record and submit a further remand report. 2.1. AO in his Remand Report submitted that the Sub registrar had confirmed that the appellant had purchased and sold the plot as narrated in the remand report. AO conducted verification with SDC Bank, Malad Branch, Mumbai and found that the cheque for Rs.4,25,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... computed at Rs.13.41 Lakhs as per the provisions of the Act. FAA called for a further remand report from the AO as how provisions of Sec. 50C were applicable in the case under consideration.FAA gave one more chance to the AO to substantiate his stand, but same was not availed by him. 3.1. FAA found that assessee had sold lease hold rights or a plot purchased from CIDCO and sold to a buyer. Assessee had transferred lease rights or plot in survey No. 118 at Nerul, Navi Mumbai allotted by CIDCO on 01-03-2006 and said rights were acquired on 24/02/2005. In this background, FAA held as under: "After considering the submissions of the representative, it is seen that his claim is correct. A perusal of the tripartite agreement by which the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pectfully following above referred orders, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue, as it is found that case under consideration is about sale of leasehold rights. Ground No.2 is stands rejected. 4. Next Ground of Appeal is about re-deposit of Rs.7.5 Lakhs by the assessee. Paragraph 4.1 of the order of the FAA is self-explanatory for deciding the issue. In this regard his observations are as under: "The A.O. found that the appellant deposited an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-which was explained as out of withdrawals on earlier dates. At the time of hearing, the representative submitted that during the of remand proceedings, the appellant filed a letter dated 30/06/2009 in which submissions were made regarding this cash deposit of Rs.7,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleted the addition made by the AO then what should be the grievance of the Revenue ?AO himself had admitted that money amounting to Rs.7.25 lakhs was withdrawn and re-deposited by the assessee. On an admitted fact, FAA endorses the view of the AO then what is justification for filing a second appeal? With these comments, we dismiss the appeal in this regard. Ground No.3 is decided against the Revenue. 5. Last Ground of Appeal is about cash deposit of Rs.3 Lakhs on 27-09-2005. AO on page 11 at para 8 has held that the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation or documentary evidences in this regard and that same formed assessee's income from un-disclosed sources of income. Following are the findings of the AO. "Issue No.D- Cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that the appellant has filed some sale bills for agricultural produce for Rs.1,80,200/- to Shri Doshi Chandulal Sejal. However, the appellant has not admitted any agricultural income either in the earlier year or during this year. Further, the cash deposit is Rs.3,00,000/-. whereas the sale bill was produced only for Rs.1,80,200-. Even though the claim of agricultural income cannot be accepted the alternate claim that Rs.3,00,000/- was received from Shri Ramchandra P. Maurya has to be considered. As contended by the representative, the appellant had already admitted sale consideration of Rs.8,76,000/- towards transfer of lease right and, therefore, the appellant should be given set off of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the amount received from the....