TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal. He filed his return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 14/10/2010 admitting an income of Rs. 13,20,520/-. A survey u/s 133A of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted in the above hospital premises of the assessee on 23.03.2010. Certain discrepancies were noticed during the course of survey. To cover up the deficiencies, the assessee came forward voluntarily to offer Rs. 15,00,000/- income in his individual status, Rs. 5,00,000/- in his wife's name and Rs. 5,00,000/- in HUF status. But on verification of return of income, the AO noticed that the assessee filed return disclosing business receipts at Rs. 11,63,515/-, whereas, the assessee admitted during the course of survey to file return of income with Rs. 15,00,000/- as income. When the AO as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t there were some deficiencies noticed in the course of survey, assessee has voluntarily offered to disclose Rs. 15 lakhs as income in individual capacity, however, assessee has declared Rs. 11.63 lakhs as actual income. It is to be noted that return of income was accepted by the AO and no specific defects were pointed out in the return of income, hence, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) is not proper. 7. Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of revenue authorities. 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. It is observed that assessee has voluntarily offered to disclose the income due to deficiencies noted during the survey. Revenue authorities have agreed to stop the investigation further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness. He observed that in the present case, the assessee has let out the property and was collecting rent from various tenants and therefore the question of allowing depreciation on the property is not correct. Hence, the rental income derived from the property at Karimnagar was treated as income from House Property as per Provisions of Section 24 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and he directed the AO may examine for the earlier years whether the assessee had claimed the depreciation on the House Property income wrongly and if so to examine feasibility of initiating suitable remedial action. 11. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. Assessee has raised the ground that income from rentsis to be treated as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the said amount was funded by Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd. In view of the above observations, the AO held that there is no litigation in the property documents that the advance was returned for no reason, the assessee is well educated and nobody will sell property for less consideration and therefore he formed an opinion that the intent of the assessee is to evade capital gain. Accordingly, the AO brought to tax the difference between Rs. 1,06,00,000/- and Rs. 51,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 55,00,000 as capital gain, as unexplained income. 13. The CIT(A) observed that it is appropriate to note that while the sale agreement was cancelled, the assessee did not produce documents nor established the dispute in the said property. It was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entered into agreement to sell with another person. The reason for selling lesser value and reason for cancellation was not brought on record by the assessee. Citing the above reasons, the AO brought to tax the difference amount as unexplained income. We fail to understand the logic of bringing the difference amount as unexplained income. The addition is on the difference of amount in sale consideration. If at all, AO could have increased the sale consideration to tax and calculated capital gains. However, in our opinion, only provision in the income tax to bring the difference of sale consideration is section 50C. In the given case, the value of SRO and sale consideration are matching, there is no room for the AO to bring the presumed diff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT(A) observed that the date of assessment order was 28/03/2013 and the appellate order is being passed in September, 2014, i.e. a period of almost 18 months or 1 ½ half years. Even then the assessee has not produced factual evidence to support the cash credits even though there was an opportunity at the first appellate level. Hence, the additions made on account of unsecured loans and advance for sale of flats were confirmed by the CIT(A). 19. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. Assessee has submitted additional evidence before us and the same is crucial to decide the issue, we admit the same. As the additional evidence is filed by the assessee for the first time before us and the AO had no....