TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 23.03.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. The A.R. of the assessee filed reply on 29.03.2018. Thereafter, the A.O. issued notice under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 along with questionnaire requiring the assessee to furnish the copy of income tax return, details/documents etc. The Authorized Representative of the assessee filed copies of sale/purchase deeds and ITR. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted from bank account submitted by the assessee that assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 26,04,000/-. On being confronted to the assessee, it was submitted that he has agricultural land of 0.675 Hectare situated at village Painga, Modinagar on 11.5.2010 for Rs. 20,25,000/- which was in the name of his wife Smt. Omwati and which was purchased in the year 2006 for Rs. 4,30,200/-. 2.1. So far as the balance deposit of Rs. 5,75,000/- is concerned, [i.e.,Rs. 26,00,000(-)20,25,000 = Rs. 5,75,000], it was submitted that this amount was given by his son Mr. Tinku Chaudhary after sale of his Buffallows, cow and popular trees. In the absence of any plausible explanation or evidence to show such sale of Buffallows, c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in his assessment order and has given clear finding that due to several deficiencies, this explanation of the appellant cannot be accepted. The stated claim of the appellant that this amount was received from his son, Shri Tinku Choudhary, who gave him the said amount after sale of buffalo, cow and popular trees, however, he failed to give any evidence such as khasra, khatauni with respect to land of which popular trees were grown and any credible evidence with respect to sale of cattle. He could only furnish a plain receipt (a self serving document) of the sale. Even during appellate proceedings the appellant fail to give any credible explanation supported by evidentiary proof of the stated receipt of Rs. 5,75,000/- from his son, Shri Tinku Choudhary. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with finding of the A.O. on this issue. Therefore, the action of the A.O. for treating Rs. 5,75,000/- as unexplained income of the appellant is confirmed. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected." 2.4. So far as the addition of Rs. 7,80,851/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the A.O. by observing as under : "5.4. Addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 5,75,000/- by treating it as alleged unexplained income of the assessee, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 7,80,851/- made by Ld. AO as LTCG, on the ground that assessee is not the owner of subjected agricultural land, hence the alleged capital gain cannot be taxable at all in the hands of assessee. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 7,80,851/- made by Ld. AO as LTCG on the ground that subjected agricultural land was not a capital asset, hence not chargeable to tax at all. 8. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other." 4. During the course of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not press the grounds of appeal numbers. 1, 2 and 3, for which, the Ld. D.R. has no objection. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posit of Rs. 26 lakhs and Rs. 20,25,000/-. 7.1. The A.O. further made addition of Rs. 7,80,851/- as long term capital gains on account of sale of land at Rs. 20,25,000/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition and deduction under section 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7.2. I find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld both the additions, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the A.O. without examining the son of the assessee simply rejected the claim of assessee that an amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- given by his son is out of sale of Buffallows, cow and popular trees. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that given an opportunity assessee is willing to produce his son before the A.O. to substantiate such cash given to his father. Similarly, it is also the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that when the property is in the name of the wife of the assessee who has purchased and sold the same, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. I find some force in the above arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Admittedly, the asses....