Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA(SMC)
O R D E R PER A.K.GARODIA, AM: This is assessee’s appeal directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-V, Bangalore dated 24-02-2014 for the assessment year : 2007- 08.
The grounds raised by the assessee are as under;
“1. The appellate order dated 24-02-2014 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-V Bangalore, is opposed to law, facts of the case in so far as it is against to the appellant. 2. The ld CIT*(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the AO of Rs.9.00 Lakhs being the cash deposits made into the Bank without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The ld. CIT(A) –V, Bangalore has erred in directing the AO to adopt the cost of acquisition of the site at Rs.1,13,464/- as against Rs.7,94,000/- without appreciating the confirmation letter issued by the Vendor M/s Aishwarya Home from whom the appellant had purchased the site.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.
5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is respectfully prayed that your Hon’ble authority be pleased to pass orders deleting the additions of Rs.9.00 Lakhs made by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A)-V, Bangalore and further be pass to orders directing the AO to consider the cost of acquisition at Rs.7,94,000/- as against of Rs.1,13,464/- and further be pleased to pass such other orders granting such other relief that your Hon’ble authority may deem fit in the interest of equity and justice”.
It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the ground no.1 is general in nature and hence, I hold that this ground needs no specific adjudication.
For Ground no.2, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the loan confirmation letters of the creditors are available on pages 18 to 108 of the paper book. At this juncture, the Bench wanted to know as to whether the assessee has furnished evidence regarding the credit worthiness of the creditors before the authorities below or before the Tribunal in the paper book and in reply, it was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that no such evidence is available but it is a fact that loan was repaid and therefore, the addition made by the AO is not justified.
The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.
I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in para- 7.1 of his order, it is stated by the ld.CIT(A) that the genuineness of the transactions, identity and credit worthiness of the creditors has not been established by the assessee. Before me also, the credit worthiness of the creditors has not been established. It is settled legal position by now that in respect of cash credit, the requirement of sec.68 is this that the assessee has to establish the genuineness of the transaction and identity and credit worthiness of the creditors.
Therefore, in the absence of credit worthiness of the creditors having been established, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground no.2 of the assessee is dismissed.
Regarding ground no.3, it was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that copy of the sale deed dated 23-03-2006 is available on page 190-195 of the paper book, as per which, the property was purchased for a consideration of Rs.102784/- but he submitted that this price mentioned in the sale deed is the stamp duty value but the actual price paid was Rs.794240/- as per the confirmation of the seller M/s Aishwarya Homes dated 17-12-2009 available on page 109 of the paper book. He also submitted that in the confirmation of the same party dated 04-06-2015 available on page 139 of the paper book, the details regarding date and mode of payment of Rs.7,94,240/- is also mentioned. Therefore, the actual consideration paid by the assessee and received by the seller should be accepted instead of stamp duty value mentioned in the sale deed.
The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.
I have considered the rival submissions. I find that as per the sale deed available on page-190 to 195 of the paper book, the property in question was purchased by the assessee for an amount of Rs.102784/-on 23-03-2006. The confirmation of the seller M/s Aishwarya Homes Developers and Builders, available on pages 109 & 139 of the paper book stating therein that this property was sold by them to the assessee for a sum of Rs.794240/- cannot be accepted as cost of property in dispute because the sale deed is the final document regarding the purchase price and this is beyond human probability that a person paying Rs.794240/- for purchase of a property will accept the sale deed for a consideration of Rs.102784/-. It may be that this amount of Rs.794240/- was paid by the assessee to that party i.e. M/s Aishwarya Homes Developers and Builders on various dates during May 9th 2005 to Feb. 2005. But the question is as to whether such payment is for this property because if these payments are in respect of this very property, then why in the sale deed, the price mentioned would be Rs.102784/-. In fact, in clause no.10 of the sale deed as available on page -194 of the paper book, it is specified that the fair market value (FMV) of the property is Rs.102784/-. Such payment of Rs.794240/- may be a loan by the assessee to that party or may be payment for various other reasons but this is not acceptable in the facts of the present case that the amount of Rs.794240/- was paid in respect of the property in dispute particularly in view of the sale deed of the property in dispute stating that the property was having fair market value of Rs.102784/- only and the same was purchased for the same price as per the sale deed. Hence on this issue also, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A).
Accordingly, ground no.3 of the appeal is also dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.