TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h deposit in their bank account prior to issue of cheques of the same amount to the assessee as loan. Therefore, he held that the unsecured loan shown by the assessee is not genuine and the loan creditors did not have the capacity to advance the loan to the assessee. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that ld AO has stated that the income tax returns of the lenders together with the profit and loss account and balance sheet of the loan creditors were filed voluntarily at the fag end of the assessment year without any capital account/balance sheet. 6. Before us, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee argued that the Assessing Officer has examined the loan creditors by recording their statement on 27.12.2011 in case of Shravan Kumar Mittal and on 28.12.2011 in case of Smt. Usha Devi Agrawal and Smt. Lata Devi Agrawal, wherein, they had admitted of advancing loan to the assessee on interest @ 12% per month. Thus, the loan creditors have confirmed the fact of advancing loan to the assessee. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj), wherein it has been he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving advanced the loan to the assessee. 10. We find that the argument of ld A.R. of the assessee is that the loan from all the loan creditors has been received by cheque through banking channel. All the three loan creditors are income tax assessee. They have filed their income tax returns, profit and loss account and balance sheet before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has doubted the creditworthiness of the loan creditors on the ground that they have deposited cash prior to issue of cheque to the assessee. The submission of ld A.R. is that as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the assessee has to prove the identity of the loan creditors, genuineness of transaction and the creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The argument is that in law, the assessee is required to prove the source of the credit in his books of account and not the source of source i.e. the source of the credit in the account of the sub-creditor. All the moneys were received by cheque. Therefore, we find that the assessee has discharged his initial burden which established the identity of the loan creditors beyond any shadow of doubt. Thereafter, the department could not bring any positi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee is that the CIT(A) erred in denying deduction u/s.54F claimed by the assessee out of long term capital gain on sale of land. 13. The brief facts of the case are that during the year, the assessee claimed to have sold a piece of land measuring 0.64 acres of Khasra No.98/7 of Jagatpur, Raigarh to Shri Naveen Bansal for Rs. 13,15,000/- on 17.9.2008. The assessee had neither shown the capital gain in the return of income nor claimed exemption of capital gain in the return of income. On being show caused by the Assessing Officer, it was explained by the assessee that the said land was purchased for Rs. 40,000/- on 9.6.1994 and was sold for Rs. 13,15,000/- and profit on land of Rs. 12,75,000/- was credited to the capital account. The assessee enclosed copy of sale deed. It was submitted that the assessee had incurred expenses of Rs. 11,50,059/- on construction of new residential house and assumed that the capital gain was exempt u/s.54B after taking benefits of indexed cost of land and had no tax liability of such gain. On the above bonafide belief, the assessee had inadvertently missed the disclosure on computation of sale of said land which on the other hand had no tax liabil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion been purchased with the help of gifts of the assessee, it would not have been shown by Smt. Krishna Devi in her books of account. The assessee had no dispute with his mother and if had there been any dispute, he would have approached any authority with the help of any person. However, he had not done so. Further, Smt Krishna Devi had sold the said land in the year 1996 to Shri Lilaram Soni for Rs. 41,000/- and duly shown in her books of account and, therefore, in the absence of any evidence to support the claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the fund used to purchase the property in the name of the assessee did not belong to the assessee. Consequently, when the property was not considered to be the property of the assessee for the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961, the amount received from Shri Naveen Bansal, who is the father of the assessee on the pretext of sale of this property cannot be considered as sale consideration but deemed to be the income from other sources. Further, the assessee has not shown either capital gain or exemption in his computation of income, therefore, the amount of Rs. 13,15,000/- received from Shri Naveen Bansal was held to be the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material evidence on record and there was no evidence annexed with the return on exemption claimed u/s.54F. He further observed that the Hon'ble Rajsthan High Court observed that if the view is taken without any evidence or documents annexed with the return, the claim of any deduction was to be allowed, there was no purpose of even filing the return or sending the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. Hence, he confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 16. Before us, it was argued by the ld A.R. of the assessee that the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer has disallowed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act merely on the ground that the assessee in the return of income has not claimed the same. He argued that even if the deduction was not claimed in the return of income, but the claim was made during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the same and allow the benefit of the same to the assessee if all the evidence and details are made available to the Assessing officer. He submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that the deduction not claimed in the....