TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 The assessee, an individual, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 22.02.2010 declaring Nil Income. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that in the return of income, the assessee had shown Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 2,56,343/- which was entirely claimed as exempt under section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in view of the compulsory acquisition of land by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The case was selected for scrutiny for this Assessment Year and the assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2011, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs. 52,62,338/- in view of the following additions to the returned income :- (i)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aggregating to Rs. 4,00,000/- out of the original addition of Rs. 13,70,330/-made as unproved creditors under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case:- [a] Sri Hanumanthappa Rs. 3,00,000/- [b] Sri R S Rakesh, S/o the appellant Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 35,20,000/- considered as unexplained cash deposits made by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,00,000/- 6.1.2 In respect of this ground, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was received from Shri. Hanumanthappa by account payee cheque No.10859 of Canara Bank which was encashed on 28.03.2009. The said amount was received as advance towards sale of site and since the intended purchaser backed out from the deal, the said amount was to be returned to him; out of which a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was repaid on 29.03.2009 and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was repaid on 30.03.2009 by cash. The balance of Rs. 3,00,000/- payable was genuine and the identity of the party was established. 6.1.3 With regard to the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to Shri. R. S. Rakesh, S/o the assessee, the learned AR submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 68 of the Act. In this factual matrix of the case, as discussed above, we find no reason to interfere with or deviate from the findings rendered by the CIT(A) and consequently dismiss ground No.2 raised by the assessee. 7. Ground No.3 - Cash Deposits - Rs. 35,20,000/- 7.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee contends that the CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 35.20 lakhs made by the assessee. In this regard, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the assessee's bank account in the year under consideration. On being queried in this regard, the AR of the assessee agreed for an addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- in respect of the aggregate of cash deposits made. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Funds & Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in 127 ITR 740 (Ker). 7.3 In rejoinder, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that mere consent alone cannot confer jurisdiction to assessee. According to the learned AR, the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Jayasree Chit Funds & Services (P) Ltd., (supra), turns on its own facts and the same does not apply to the case on hand. It is further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B. Kishore Kumar (supra), relied on by the learned DR, is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as it was rendered in the context of admission in a sworn statement given by the assessee in the course of search conducted under section 132 of the Act. The lea....