AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shares of M/s Radha Swami Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on which long term capital gain of Rs. 37,78,270/- was earned in AY 2008-09 is an accommodation entry without any basis thus confirming the addition in the year under consideration even when accepting that the transaction pertain to AY 2008-09. 4.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ''8. The appellant has raised some contentions which were made before the AO. The appellant has claimed that the data was not properly captured in the return and there were many inaccuracies in the return captured by the system. It is observed that the appellant had uploaded e-return on 26-07-2008 and it has been claimed that the same return was filed on 28-07-2008 with the AO. The AO has observed that the appellant had not filed all the paper including computation of income for the relevant year alongwith the return not filed physically / manually. As per Section 139C r.w. Rule 12 which came into force w.e.f. 01-06-2006, provided that the return of income should not be accompanied by any document or copy of a new account or form or audit report etc.,however, it was obligatory o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.'' 5. During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the lower authorities have erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 37,78,270/- and further submitted that lower authorities have taxed the capital gain on account of sale of shares and resultantly the capital gain which had arisen in A.Y. 2008-09 and deduction claimed u/s 54of the Act. Thus the capital gain which relates to A.Y. 2008-09 cannot be taxed in A.Y. 2014-15 merely on the technical reasons. To this effect, the ld.AR has submitted following written submission. ''1. From the facts stated above the two issues arising in the present appeal is whether the amount of Rs. 37,78,270/- can be considered unexplained only because the system generated return for AY 2008-09 is not reflecting the long term capital gain and whether the amount from sale of shares on which the said gain is earned in AY 2008-09 can be treated as unexplained income for AY 2014-15. 2. It is submitted that for AY 2008-09 the assessee has e-filed the return of income on 26.07.2008. The return uploaded through software in XML file contained all the figures including the long term capital g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exercised a Full value of consideration 3a 4000000 b Deductions under section 48 i Cost of acquisition after indexation bi 221730 ii Cost of Improvement after indexation bii Nil iii Expenditure on transfer biii Nil iv Total (bi+bii+biii) biv 221730 c Balance (3a-biv) 3c 3778270 d Exemption under sections 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G/54GA 3d 3778270 e Net balance (3c-3d) 3e Nil However, '0' is shown in Part B-TI, column 4(b) (PB 14) and in Schedule CYLA, row no. (v) (PB 22) which shows that data of Schedule CG of the return was not ported in the department software whereas it was filled by the assessee. (g) Apart from this there are other errors also as mentioned in Point No.7 to 11 of letter dt. 18.11.2016 (PB 56-57) From the above mistakes it can be noted that in the system generated return the various amounts/ details mentioned i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the system perfectly shows the capital (APB 44) not only that deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act is also reflected. Thus, there is no fault. Not only that the transaction of capital gain and is subsequent investment in A.Y. 2008-09 how can be taxed in A.Y. 2014-15 merely on the reasons that on line transaction does not show capital gain. The ld.AR of the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 24- 10-2016 placed before the AO and the ld. CIT(A) wherein she has confirmed the fact on oath about the capital gain and deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act. She has further stated that she is assessed to tax since 1998 and since then no such behavior is observed. Not only that the transactions are duly supported by bills and routed through bank account which are already disclosed in all the income tax returns 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that capital gain is now escaped and is not reflected and captured. The assessee has claimed capitalization in this year for the first time and source of capital gain income is also not checked and thus the action of taxing the credit in the year is based on finding and thus the ld. DR rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO, however, at Para 4 of order by just referring to the submission of assessee held that same is not acceptable and thereby treated the amount of Rs. 37,78,270/- as undisclosed income for the year under consideration and made addition for the same. 7.4 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has failed to explain as to how the efiled return could not have captured the details of capital gain and claim of deduction u/s 54F. In fact, the data of e-filed return is showing that the long term capital gain filled up by the appellant was blank. The claim is proven to be false from the fact that the data relating to other heads of income are showing correct figures. In a computerized system driven environment, it is not possible that an assessee would feed something and the IT department system would capture something else. Moreover, in the case of e-filed return, immediately after submitting return, the electronic copy of the return so submitted is available for download. In normal course, the appellant would have noticed from the downloaded return that the return is not showing correct information and in that case the appellant could have revised the return. However, ....