TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nashik is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 98,96,077/- on account of section 50C. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik was correct in holding the transactions of the assessee as business transactions when the assessee himself had offered the same as Capital Gain in the returned of income. 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,38,879/- on account of section 68 of the Act being peak cash balance. 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,59,875/- on account of section 68 of the Act being loan ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to oversight the return was filed in Form No.ITR-2 declaring short term capital gains as against correct income from business. The assessee had also sold land at Kopergaon, against which it had declared capital gains at Rs. 1,67,946/-; vis-à-vis Basement in Gurudev Towers, the assessee had declared the short term capital gains at Rs. 6,68,958/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the stamp duty valuation of Basement sold was Rs. 1.44 crores as against the sale value declared by assessee at Rs. 66,51,000/- and observed that the difference of Rs. 78,02,000/- was taxable under section 50C of the Act. The assessee in support of its claim that it was business income, filed audit report which was signed on 05.01.2014 i.e. more than two and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer was of the view that an individual without any source of cash and without any destination of cash would not kept cash at home and he did not accept the theory of cash withdrawal which was re-deposits in the bank account. Hence, he made an addition of Rs. 61,69,170/-. 7. Another addition which was made in the hands of assessee was on account of loan taken from wife, where it was observed that wife was not filing any return of income. Hence, the creditworthiness of wife does not stand proved. The assessee was held to have not satisfied the genuineness of transaction and sum of Rs. 5,59,875/- was added in the hands of assessee. 8. The CIT(A) noted that the issue in dispute was whether the sale of property was capital gains or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition in this regard. Further, the CIT(A) relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) to propose that if the assessee makes mistake it was the duty of Revenue to rectify the same. In this regard, she referred to CBDT Circular No.14(XL-35) of 1955, dated 11.04.1955 that the Income-tax Department could not take advantage of assessee's ignorance and should have examined the facts in proper perspective. 9. Coming to the next addition made under section 68 of the Act by assessing peak cash balance in assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) observed that closing cash balance of Rs. 46,38,879/- was accepted by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2009-10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the returns of income in response to notices issued under section 148 of the Act and even the tax audit report, wherever applicable, were filed for all these years and the sale of unit in Gurudev Towers was accepted as business income of assessee. In such scenario, there is no reason to treat the said income differently in the year under consideration. The assessee had sold one of the units of Gurudev Towers in the year and just because the assessee declared the same as short term capital gains but later pointed out that the same was by way of an inadvertent mistake, then such declaration made by assessee cannot be held against the assessee. It is the duty of Assessing Officer to examine the facts in proper perspective and assess the inco....