TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plying the duly substituted S.115BBE inserted retrospectively instead of taxing it at 35.54% as per the old provision of S.115BBE. 3. It is therefore prayed that the above additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), may please be deleted or any addition if sustained may please be taxed at 35.54% as per the old provisions of S.115BBE. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. The assessee derived income from brokerage and agricultural income. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 3,17,420/- along with agricultural income of Rs. 5,49,930/- on 23-01-2018. The case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason that large agricultural income shown in ITR, larger cash deposit during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 13,60,500/- during demonetization period. The assessee purchased agricultural land during the year under consideration and the property transaction was completed on 02-09-2019. The sale consideration of the property is Rs. 1,25,95,950/- whereas the stamp duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion was also transferred to the purchasing party. The sale consideration for the agreed amount of Rs. 1,25,95,950/- was made from 1990 to 2012 in cash installments and we are accepting the final receipt of the same. In future, there is no claim to be entertained in relating to no consideration or lower consideration by party of the second part or their successors, parents or heirs and if any such claim is made, the same shall stand void through this agreement in writing" Based on the above facts, the Assessing Officer has observed that the consideration mentioned in purchase deed is Rs. 1,25,95,950/- and the assessee buyer has 50% share and hence, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 68 by concluding that the assessee could not explain the source of investment and made addition of Rs. 62,97,975/-(50% of Rs. 1,25,95,950/-). Hence, the primary argument of the assessee is regarding the invocation of Section 68 by Assessing Officer in regard to hypothetical payment of Rs. 62,97,975/- without any credit in the books of account or without any reference of voucher evidencing unaccounted receipts or unaccounted payments made during the year under consideration. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sale deed. In cases falling under section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, the words used shows that before any of these sections are invoked, the condition precedent as to existence of Investment, expenditure, etc. must be conclusively established by material on record! evidence particularly as to the exact dates on which the investment/expenditure is made. As submitted above, Section 68 cannot be invoked as there is no credit entry representing the said addition of Rs. 62,97,975/- and further Section 69 or 698 also cannot be invoked as the Assessing Officer has not fulfilled the onus that lay upon him to prove the payment made with date of payment. The law is clear in as much as it states that the sum as determined under above mentioned sections would be taxable in the Financial Year in which it is credited (Section 68), invested (Section 69, 69A, 698) or incurred (Section 69C) which also shows as to why the date of payment is so very crucial. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not fulfilled this onus upon him as he has not given any finding as to dates of payments falling in the year under consideration. Reliance is placed on the decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of Chiraayu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to be considered as true regarding the confirmation from both parties that payment being made from 1990 to 2012 and possession also being handed over to the purchaser assessee. The said facts are confirmed by seller party as they have undisputedly signed and executed the sale deed and Assessing Officer has not made any further inquiry with the sellers u/s: 133(6) or 131. It is well settled law that the Revenue cannot rely on part of documents and neglect the remaining part. The Revenue cannot pick and choose for the benefit of Department. The Assessing Officer has made addition solely on the basis of Sale Deed and hence, the said sale deed is to be relied in full and thus when the Sale deed dated 02.09.2016 clearly mentions that the payment for land is made from 1990 to 2012 which is also supported by Agreement to Sale cum possession dated 01.02.2012, and hence there is no question of making any additions in the year under consideration. Even otherwise, surprising, the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal has concluded that the addition is to be confirmed under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) r.w.s. 50C although the Assessing Officer has not made any reference of deeming provisions of Se....