TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed. 2. Rs. 2,56,03,777/- (wrongly typed as Rs. 2,58,03,777/-): The ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made of Rs. 2,56,03,777/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of increase in capital. The impugned addition so made and confirmed, being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, kindly be deleted in full. 3. Rs. 15,32,337/-: The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made of Rs. 15,32,337/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act alleging that total purchase consideration of the properties is less as compared to the DLC value as income from other sources. The impugned addition so made and confirmed, being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, kindly be deleted in full. 4. Rs. 38,76,456/-: The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made of Rs. 38,76,456/-on account of agricultural income declared initially ignoring the fact and legal position that the same was declared at NIL in the revised ROI and without bringing any evidence on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onservation of the case from limited to complete scrutiny was made before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, III, Jaipur was made on 04.10.2016 by the ld. AO and the same was approved on 10.11.2016. 3.3. The AO issued a summons to Shri Mohan Lal Sharam, from whom the assessee claimed to have obtained a unsecured loan of Rs. 18,00,000/-. His statement was recorded and given a copy to the assessee. The assessee was required to furnish the reply as to why the unsecured loan of Rs. 18,00,000/- may not be treated as his unexplained income in view of the statement of Shri Mohan Lal Sharma. The assessee did not furnish any explanation to the ld. AO. 3.4 Since the assessee remained non-compliant ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment based on the information available on record and ultimately completed the assessment by making the following addition in the return of income so filed by the assessee: Sr. No. Particulars Amount Rs. 1 Total income as declared in the return of income 2,05,280 2 Addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of increase in capital 2,56,03,0777 3 Addition on account of business income 17,24,000 4 Unexplained unse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/- (during A.Y. 2013-14) and Rs. 27,00,000/- (during A.Y.2014-15) respectively, a gift of Rs. 11,00,000/- from his wife, during A.Y. 2013-14 and a gift of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his natural father (during A.Y.2013-14). Further, the appellant has stated that he has received unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 18,00,000 from Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma and another unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 5, 18,800/- from various parties. An advance against land situated at Kishanpura was also received amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/- Hence, the details of total cash credits amounting to Rs. 1,09,18,800/- only have been provided by the appellant out of the total addition of Rs. 2,56,03,777/- The appellant has attached various confirmations and gift deeds to support his arguments. The submissions of the appellant have been perused. It is seen that the appellant had at the time of assessment proceedings only stated to have received Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from his late father as the source of the purchase of capital assets. Now, he has changed his submissions and has given cash credits to have been received as gifts from his blood relatives, acquaintances and through unsecured loans. Hen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leted. The ground of appeal no. 5 is allowed. Ground No.6 : The ground of appeal is account of addition of Rs. 15,35,337/- by the Ld. AO u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. From the assessment order, it is seen that the impugned addition has been made on account of purchase consideration being less than the value adopted by sub registrar for the purpose of stamp duty. The assessee has carried out two such transactions during the A.Y. 2014-15. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has not been able to controvert the facts stated in the assessment order or bring out any new facts through which his submission can be accepted. In view of the foregoing, the addition of Rs. 15,35,337/- made by the Ld. AO is hereby confirmed. The ground of appeal no.6 is dismissed. Ground No.7 :- The ground of appeal is directed against addition of Rs. 38,76,456/- made by the Ld. AO on account of agricultural income earned by the appellant. The appellant has not produced any documentary evidence regarding land holding, sale bills of crops, Jamabandi and Girdawari report etc. to support the same. In view of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 29.08.2018 against above order but unfortunately Id. CIT(A) partly upheld the additions vide it's order dt. 25.04.2024 to the tune of Rs. 3,10,12,570/- (listed at a, e & f) made by ld. AO. Thus, feeling aggrieved from the above order of ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed this appeal. However, the Department is not in appeal. GOA 1: Is a general ground and may kindly be considered while deciding the other grounds of appeals. GOA 2: Addition of Rs. 2,56,03,777/- on account of unexplained money u/s 68 (wrongly typed of Rs. 2,58,03,777/- in CIT(A) order): (AO pg.3, Pr.6.1 and CIT(A) Pg. 11& 12) Facts: The finding of the AO at pg.3, Pr.6.1 of order is as under: "6.1 Introduction of fresh capital- As per the balance sheet furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings vide his written submission dated 25.05.2016, the assessee has shown his capital of Rs. 2,57,56,456/- which is comparatively too higher as compared to the capital of Rs. 1,52,679/- shown as on 31.03.2013 in the ITR for the A. Y. 2013-14. Therefore, there is increase of capital of Rs. 2,56,03,777/-. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r nor he has explained the source of deposits/ credits made in the bank account of his father. Since the assessee's father is deceased, it was the onus of the assessee being legal representative to prove the source of credit entries made in the bank account of his father. However, the assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of his father. In the circumstances, the amount transferred in the bank account of his father remained unverified and, genuineness and creditworthiness of the same could not be proved. Therefore, the source of total capital of Rs. 2,56,03,777/- is not found to be explained by the assessee. Hence, the same is treated as introduced out of his undisclosed income, Accordingly, the undisclosed income of Rs. 2,56.03,777/- is here by added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT. Act 1961. From the above it is clear that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income/furnished inaccurate particulars Therefore, 4 is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the IT Act, 1961." In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) firstly repeated all the facts of the case and submission ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also received amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/-. Hence, the details of total cash credits amounting to Rs. 1,09,18,800/- only have been provided by the appellant out of the total addition of Rs. 2,56,03,777/-. The appellant has attached various confirmations and gift deeds to support his arguments. The submissions of the appellant have been perused. It is seen that the appellant had at the time of assessment proceedings only stated to have received Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from his late father as the source of the purchase of capital assets. Now, he has changed his submissions and has given cash credits to have been received as gifts from his blood relatives, acquaintances and through unsecured loans. Hence, the submission of the appellant are not only diverging but are totally unconvincing. The appellant has not submitted the copies of ITRs of the relatives from whom he has received gifts alongwith their statements of affairs and bank statements to prove the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. All the documents submitted by the appellant are self-serving and cannot be accepted to have discharged the onus of proving the transactions of cash ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unts is further supported by the facts that the assessee consistently mentioned in the Return of Income u/s 139 that he is not liable to maintain Books of Accounts as per S.44AA which fact is not disproved. The relevant part of ITR is reproduced hereinunder: - Thus, it was only an imposed presumption of the authorities below that the appellant might have maintained books or accounts and therefore they invoked S. 68 which is completely without jurisdiction. 2.1.3 The CIT(A) deleted the addition of business income (at CIT (A) Order pg. 13 middle on GOA3) saying that the assessee was not required to maintain accounts u/s 44AB against which AO is not in further appeal. If that is the scene, then whatever Balance Sheet (PB59) assessee might have furnished before the AO, whether the initial one, has no sanctity and could not have been considered by the AO. It is not the case that AO asked regarding the source of investment in the purchase of the two lands, totaling more than Rs. 2 crores for which the assessee filed the Balance Sheet. Thus, the CIT(A) has contradicted his own stand in as much as on one hand he stated that no books of accounts were required etc.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... maintained by assessee; some credit has to be of during the previous year -- " 2.3.2 CIT vs. Taj Borewells (2007) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) it was held as under: "In the judgment reported in S. Rajagopala Vandayar vs. CIT (1990) 81 CTR (Mad) 195 : (1990) 184 ITR 450 (Mad), in the case of S. Rajagopala Vandayar vs. CIT, this Court has taken a view that profit and loss account does not form part of the books of account and held as follows : "We May point out that that is not the situation here, as it had not been disputed by the assessee right through that no account books at all had been maintained. The Supreme Court, in CIT vs. National Syndicate (1961) 41 ITR 225 (SC), dealing with s. 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, laid down that in order to claim deduction of the loss sustained under that provision, one of the essential conditions to be fulfilled was that the loss should have been brought into the books of the assessee and written off as provided by the first proviso to s. 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. At p. 234, the Supreme Court has catalogued the four conditions required to be fulfilled and the fourth condition, according to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnection, point out that the argument of the Revenue in that case that the profit and loss account is the account which can be said to be a book of account was rejected and it was characterised as a statement representing the state of business as at the end of the accounting year with details culled from other books of account, which May be characterised as the primary books which a business man generally maintains. In other words, according to that decision, a profit and loss account is not a book of account. We are, therefore, of the view that merely by relying upon the profit and loss account, the assessee in this case cannot claim the benefit of allowance of loss sustained on the sale of the cars. " The word "books of account" is not defined during the relevant assessment year. Later, s. 2(12A) was introduced in the Act defining "books or books of account" by the Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 1st June, 2001, and the same reads as follows : "(12A) 'books or books of account' includes ledgers, day-books, cash books, account-books and other books, whether kept in the written form or as print-outs of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er para 1-4 at Pg 14-15 of this WS and also refer Note 1 below table. 5,00,000 From biological Father Shri Nawal Kishore Sharma on 17.03.2013 in Cash Gift Deed (PB-6). Kindly refer para 7 at Pg 14-15 of this WS 11,00,000 From Spouse of Assessee Smt. Sapna Sharma Rs. 10 Lakhs received from relatives (PB-5) and Rs. 1 Lakh from her personal Savings. Kindly refer para 5-6 at Pg 14-15 of this WS. 18,00,000 Unsecured Loan from Shri Mohan Lal Sharma via Banking channel on 11.06.2013 Bank Ledger of assessee (PB 60). Kindly refer para 8 at Pg 14-15 of this WS. 5,97,242 Sale proceeds from Verna Car in cash on 25.08.2013 Car RC and Loan statement where loan of Rs. 3,83,333/- agreed to be paid by purchaser Shri Kamles (PB 7-10). Kindly refer para 10 at Pg 14-15 of this WS. 5,18,800 Unsecured loan from various parties listed at PB20 Affidavit from the parties (PB 21-40). Kindly refer para 11 at Pg 14-15 of this WS. 18,00,000 Amount received from Shri Madan lal Sharma as token money / advance for land located at K No. 199, Village Kishanpura The. Bassi Agreement for sale of agriculture land dt. 12.05.2013 for total sale consideration of Rs. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....86-97). The said sale proceeds, received through bank by through father and deposited in SBBJ Bank (Bank Statement - PB 114) and thereafter transfer to assessee bank account (OBC Bank Statement- PB 115) were the primary source of the gift to the assessee. b. Personal Capital: The assessee's father had capital of Rs. 68,38,632/- as on 01.04.2013, and profit of Rs. 3,12,428.61 earned during the AY 2014-15 (PB67-68). This capital and profit were also used to contribute to the gift. Thus, the gift of Rs. 2.10 crores from assessee's step father is a genuine and bona fide transaction. The circumstances surrounding the gift, including the donor's intentions, the assessee's relationship with the donor, and the sale of the stepfather's agricultural land, clearly demonstrate the legitimacy of the transaction beyond any doubt. 3.2 Initial onus stands fully and duly discharged: 3.2.1 At the outset it is submitted that it is only initial onus, which lay upon the appellant to prove the identity and the capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction and once this initial onus is discharged, it shifts to the ld. AO to rebut/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 (PB4). Unfortunately, the ld. CIT(A) again ignored the submission made before him which is reproduced as under (also at CIT(A) order Pg.3): "1. It is stated that I am adopted child of Sh. Kalyan Sahay Ji Sharma, who had deceased in July, 2015. He was farmer and heaving 10 bigha land (approx.), further he used to take land on 'BATAI' basis for farming and earn agriculture income, as per my knowledge, he generally farms the land around 30 to 35 bigha every year which were include his own land as well as land taken on 'BATAI' basis and used to sold agriculture products in open market or door basis through himself or through employees. 2. From the year 2011-12, to till his death he was generally in ill position and he was conscious about my future after his death. Generally in traditional families or in rural area's in such kind of positions, relative makes some nuisance or make dispute for adopted child. So remove such kind of problems, he decided to phase wise transfer of his assets in my favour. 3. It is worthy to state that he was farmer and lives in rural areas so he was not well aware about banking systems and generally held his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further affirm that if the above point no.8 is true and correct and find otherwise than I will solely liable to pay income tax on such money without any hesitation. 9. Further stated that agriculture income shown in my original return filled on 30.12.2015 were wrongly shown as the return was getting time barring and due to hurries, it was wrongly shown. Please not consider the same. 10. Further stated that in FY 2012-13, there was no Motar Car in my name, which was wrongly shown in balance sheet, further stated that I had purchased a car in FY 2013-14 and after two month I sold the same in favour of Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma S/o sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma for Rs. 980575/- out of Rs. 597242/- I had received in cash and balance Rs. 383333.00 which was also outstanding in favour of AU Financiers, liability to pay the same loan had taken by the said purchaser. We are also enclosing herewith the copy of loan statement and copy of RC in favour of said purchaser. We are also enclosing herewith CIBIL Report to show that I had no other loan liability at that time. (As per annexure no.3, pg no.8-16) 11. Further stated that during the year I had also received u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the appellant by his late father during his lifetime is fully evident and supported by the Balance Sheet in the case of the father (PB 67) filed during appellate proceedings. Notably, the content of the Balance Sheet has neither been disputed nor has been disproved. Unfortunately however, the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the legal issue arising from the assessment order appealed against by merely saying that (at pg. 11) "The appellant has not raised any ground of appeal for considering his revised return as the true and correct statement of affairs. Since, the Ld. AO had treated the revised return just has an information filed by the assessee, the adjudication of this appeal is being done by considering the facts as stated in the original ITR of the assessee/appellant." There can't be any dispute over the settled legal proposition that the powers of the first appellate authority are very wide and co-terminus with those of the AO and what AO can do, he can do and what AO fail to do, that also he can do. Kindly refer Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC). Therefore, CIT (A) was bound to have adjudicated upon this legal aspect. 4.2 The AO all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: During the year the assessee purchased 2 agriculture lands located at Bassi, Jaipur. The ld. AO on perusal of purchase deeds furnished by the assessee, observed that the assessee has paid purchase consideration less than the Stamp Duty Value or ("SDV/DLC" for short) of the property as contemplated u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The relevant detail are tabulated hereunder for reference (also given at pg. 7 of the Assessment Order): a b c d e f g Sr. N o. Address of property Date of purchase Declared Sale Consideration Value Adopted by the sub-registrar Difference (d-e) % of difference (f/e*1 00) 1. Agricultural land khasra No. 199 of Vill. Kishan pura, Bassi, Jaipur 01.05.2013 55,00,000/- 69,48,411/- 14,48,411/- 20.85% 2. Agricultural land khasra No. 117 of vill. Dayaram pura, Bassi, Jaipur 09.01.2014 6,50,000/- 9,33,926/- 83,926/- 8.98% Total 15,32,337/- The ld. AO alleged that the assessee failed to declare Rs. 15,32,337/- in ITR filed and finally held as under: "6.5 Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the IT. Act, 1961- As per the copy of purchase deeds availab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereby confirmed." To clarify a clerical mistake, the CIT(A) wrongly mentioned Rs. 15,35,337/- whereas the correct figures are Rs. 15,32,337/-. Hence, this ground. Submission: 1. At the outset, it is submitted that alleged addition made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act is not the final word in as much as the DLC rates being determined by the District Level Committee, is not based on any scientific analysis and is a mere estimation based on prevailing market conditions, location of property, etc. and hence the same cannot replace the concept of fair market value that is the sale consideration being decided in the open market between the buyer and seller. 2. Minor and Negligible variation: 2.1 The only issue involved in this appeal is the difference between the declared purchase consideration and the stamp duty valuation with regard to purchase of two properties as per table given at page 7 of Assessment Order. 2.2 Regarding the property being agriculture land Khasra No.117 of Vill. Dayarampura, Bassi, Jaipur the amount of variation appears to be only 8.98% (83,926 / 9,33,926 *100). Needless to say that an estimation is an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered as a precedent". Nothing can be farther from a judicious approach to the process of dispensation of justice, and such an approach, as is prayed for, is an antithesis of the principle of "equality before the law," which is one of our most cherished constitutional values. Our judicial functioning has to be even-handed, transparent, and predictable, and what we decide for one litigant must hold good for all other similarly placed litigants as well. We, therefore, decline to entertain this plea of the assessee." 4.1.2 Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. Addl. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 555/149 ITD 363 (Agra - Trib.) (para 14) (DC 10-15) wherein Hon'ble Agra ITAT bench was dealing with the question whether insertion of a proviso to Section 40(a)(i) to cure intended consequence could have retrospective effect, even though not specifically provided for, and speaking through one of us (i.e. the Vice President), the coordinate bench had, after a detailed analysis of the legal position, observed that, "Now that the legislature has been compassionate enough to cure these shortcomings of provision, and thus obviate the unintended hardships, such an amendment in law, in view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arket value but only a factor to be taken note of, if at all available in respect of an area in which the property transferred lies. It was further pointed out that this position is made clear in the explanation to Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968; this explanation also will have to be read in conjunction with explanation to section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 24/1967). It was further pointed out that undue emphasis on the guideline value without referred to the setting in which it is to be viewed will obscure the issue for consideration. Further it was held that in any event, if for the purpose of the Stamp Act, guideline value alone is not a factor to determine the value of the property, its worth will not be any higher in the context of assessing the true market value of the properties in question to ascertain whether the transaction has resulted in any offense so as to give a pecuniary advantage to one party or other. ------xxx------xxx------xxx------xxx------xxx------xxx------ 12. The Honble Supreme Court in Kolkata Export Company took note of the earlier decisions on the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 56 of the said Act. The relevant portion of Circular 8 of 2018 reads thus: "16.1 Before amendment by the Act, for computing income from business profits (section 43CA), capital gains (section 50C) and other sources (section 56) arising out of transactions in immovable property, the higher of sale consideration or stamp duty value was adopted. The difference was taxed as income both in the hands of the purchaser and the seller. 16.2 It has been pointed out that the variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration received can occur in respect of similar properties in the same area because of a variety of factors, including shape of the plot or location. 16.3 In order to minimize hardship in case of genuine transactions in the real estate sector, section 43CA, section 50C and section 56 of the Income-tax Act have been amended to provide that no adjustments shall be made in a case where the variation between stamp duty value and the sale consideration is not more than five per cent of the sale consideration." It can thus be seen that the CBDT had acknowledged that there can be genuine cases, where there would be a variance between the "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etely without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. B.2.1 Covered issue: Naina Saraf Vs. Pr. CIT, (ITAT Jaipur) (2021) 35 NYPTTJ 710 (Jp) held as under: "8. Now we come to the provisions of s. 56(2)(vii), which stood prior to the amendment. "(b) any immovable property,- (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; The Finance Act, 2013 inserted cl. (ii) in s. 56(2)(vii)(b) reading as under : "(ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration" The pre-amended law evidently did not cover a situation where an immovable property was received by an individual or HUF for a consideration, whether adequate or inadequate, whether consideration was less than the stamp duty valuation by an amount exceeding Rs. 50,000. In other words, the preamended law which was applicable up to asst. yr. 2013-14 never contemplated such a situation and it was only in the amended law, specifically made applicable for and f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leted in full. GOA-4: Addition of Rs. 38,76,456/- under income from other sources: Facts: The ld. AO has dealt this issue at pg.7 para 6.6 in following words: "6.6 Agriculture income- During the year under consideration the assessee has shown agriculture income of Rs 38,76,456/- in his return of income filed on 30.03.2015, In order to verify the genuineness of the declared agriculture income the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 10.11.2016 was required to furnish the documentary evidence regarding land holding sale bill of crops jamabandi and girdawari report in support of the same. However, despite providing various reasonable opportunities, the assessee has failed to furnish any of the above required details and documents, In the circumstances, the claim of agriculture income remained unverified. Accordingly the same is treated as unexplained other sources income and added to the total income of the assessee From the above it is clear that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income/furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the IT A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) before the due date being 31.07.2014, as the same was filed belatedly u/s 139(4) on 30.03.2015. Therefore, it was for the AO to have issued notice u/s 142(1) calling the appellant to file the ROI, which he has failed to comply with. On the other hand, the AO issued a notice u/s 143(2) on 31.08.2015 and thereafter the revised ROI was filed by the assessee on 30.03.2016. The AO not having issued any notice u/s 142(1) though obliged by the statute, it did not lie in his mouth now to raise objection and to ignore the revised ROI filed on 30.03.2016. In fact, when he issued notice u/s 143(2), he was also supposed to have issued notice u/s 142(1) along with the same, which he did not. It is not the case of the AO that the revised ROI was filed out of time, which was within 1 year from the end of the relevant financial year in which the initial ROI was filed, which fall on 31.03.2016. For these reasons, the authorities below were bound to have considered the revised ROI and the declarations made therein. There appear a seeming contradiction in the drafting of the provision seen as much as the notice u/s 143(2) could be issued for any type of ROI whether filed initially u/s 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equences which may cause undue hardship to the assessee and which made the provision unworkable or unjust in a specific situation." 3.2 Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1991] 188 ITR 402 where it was held by Apex Court that the rule of reasonable construction must be applied while construing a statute. Literal construction should be avoided if it defeats the manifest object and purpose of the Act. Thus, the impugned addition is based on a misunderstanding of the law, misinterpretation of facts, and mere speculation. It should be entirely deleted. Common Submission-Telescoping /Set off: 1. Benefit of telescoping/set-off deserves to be allowed: Alternatively and without prejudice to our above submissions, the ld. CIT(A) while acknowledging that the ld. AO erred in making double additions w.r.t. addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,56,03,777/- on account of increase in capital deleted addition of Rs. 17,24,000/- in business income, addition u/s 68 of Rs. 18 lakhs as unexplained unsecured loan and also addition u/s 68 of Rs. 10 lakhs as unexplained Sundry Creditors. However, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of Rs. 15,32,337/- bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23.12.2016 1-3 2. Copy of acknowledgement of speed post to ITO dated 29.12.2016 4 3. Copy of notarized gift deed dated 13.02.2013 in favor of spouse from her Grand Mother, Father and Uncle. 5 4. Copy of notarized gift deed dated 17.03.2013 in favor of assessee from his biological father Shri Nawal Kishore Sharma 6 5. Copy of RC of motor vehicle and vehicle loan statement 10 6. Copy of CIBIL Report of assessee 11-19 7. Copy of list of unsecured lenders 20 8. Copy of notarized affidavits of unsecured lenders 21-40 9. Copy of purchase deed of Kishanpura land dated 10.11.2015 41-51 10. Copy of sale agreement of kacholiya land dated 12.05.2013 52-55 11. Copy of Balance Sheet and Capital Account of assessee For A.Y. 2014-15 56-57 12. Copy of P&L Account of assessee for A. Y. 2014-15 58 13. Copy of Balance Sheet of assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 59 14. Copy of OBC Bank ledger account of assessee for A.Y. 2014-15 60-62 15. Copy of Cash Book of assessee for A.Y. 2014-15 63-66 16. Copy of Balance Sheet of Shri Kalyan Sahay Sharma for A.Y. 2013-14 67 17. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e investment so made and therefore revenue cannot tax the investment by invoking the provision of section 68 of the Act. When the assessee has established the source, he cannot be expected to prove the source of source. As regards the unsecured loans adopted by the assessee but was added merely based on the statement of that lender without allowing the assessee an opportunity to cross examine Shri Mohan Sharma addition cannot be confirmed [ Reliance was placed on the decision of apex court in the case of Andaman Timber]. As regards the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the variation being less than 10 % the benefit of revised limit of tolerance be given to the assessee. As regardst the agricultural income the same is revised before the assessment was completed. Alternatively, the benefit of telescoping be given to the assessee. 8. Per contra ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authority and vehemently argued that the assessee has revised the balance sheet and he could not substantiate the credit claimed in the balance sheet and therefore, the addition made is in accordance with the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessee has not submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be accepted to have discharged the onus of proving the transactions of cash credits u/s 68 of the Act.(sic) Thus, that observation of the ld. CIT(A) indirectly made it clear that the assessee filed the evidence which he considered it as self-serving document without rebutting those evidence. He do not considered those evidence to be again tested by the ld. AO so as to render the justice to the assessee and had simply stated that the assessee has changed his contention from the gift from father to other relative also. The bench noted that Shri Kalyan Sahay Ji Sharma was a farmer with approximately 10 bigha of land (Land Holding Paper PB99-102). He also cultivated additional land on a sharecropping basis, bringing his total farmed land to around 30-35 bigha annually (Khasra Girdhawri PB103-106). The agricultural produce was sold in the open market through Aadatiya or directly to consumers. So far as the gift of Rs. 2.10 crores from Shri Sharma to the assessee his father sold his agricultural land located at K. No. 626/3, Village Kanota, The Bassi, Jaipur, on 14.03.2013 to Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma for a total consideration of Rs. 1.50 Cr against sale of Agriculture land (PB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at there is no valid issuance of share capital. Shares cannot be issued in the name of non-existing persons .... " (p. 98) It is apparent that Full Bench drew the distinction between investment made by persons whose existence have been shown and in which existence has not been established. We have noticed above that the Tribunal has found that 6 out of 7 companies and 9 out of 10 individual investors in share application money of the company have been shown to exist. Thus, the initial burden has been discharged by the assessee. But, as no further enquiry having been held by the Assessing Officer to find genuineness of material by those existing investors, it cannot be made a subject-matter of addition in income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits to the extent such material has come on record. We may notice that in the judgment of Full Bench of Delhi High Court also, it has been reiterated that where the existence of investors cannot be doubted so far as the investment in share capital by them is concerned, no further enquiry can be made. Thus, we note that the assessee discharged initial onus of proving the Identity, Genuineness of the transaction and Capacity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 % be applied to retrospective even for the transaction referred herein above and that amendment made vide Finance Act 2020 was held to be retrospective. Even the CBDT in its circular no. 8/2015 stated that in order to minimize hardship in case of genuine transaction in the real estate sector, section 43CA, section 50C and section 56 of the Income-tax Act have been amended to provide that no adjustments shall be made in a case where the variation between stamp duty value and the sale consideration is not more than five per cent of the sale consideration. As regards the property listed at Sr no. 1 the difference being more than 10 % as revised and therefore, considering the specific plea of the assessee that they have not been property opportunity to substantive their defense. Considering that aspect of the matter the bench feels that lis between the parties must be decided on merits so that nobody's rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Considering that specific prayer of the assessee as regards the property no. 1 listed in the table the matter is restored to the file of the ld. AO who considered the objection on the alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on discovery of any omission or a wrong statement. Such revised return, however, can be filed before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. This is precisely what the assessee did while exercising the right to revise the return. Sub-section (5) of Section 139 does not envisage a situation whereupon revising the return if a case for loss arises which the assessee wishes to carry forward, the same would be impermissible. In terms, sub-section (5) of Section 139 allows the assessee to revise the return filed under sub- section (1) or sub-section (4) as long as the time frame provided therein is adhered to and the requirement of the revised return has arisen on discovery of any omission or a wrong statement in the return originally filed. Accepting the contention of the revenue would amount to limiting the scope of revising the return already filed by the assessee flowing from sub-section (5). No such language or intention flows from such provision. Considering the overall facts and submission placed on record we direct the assessee to submit all the evidence before the ld. AO and thereby....