Log In

| Recover password

pexels-pixabay-48148
pexels-august-de-richelieu-4427430
pexels-energepiccom-288477

In (2023] 105 ITR (Trib) 610 (ITAT[Amrit]) the assessee claimed to have received excess sale consideration on sale of agricultural land other than as mentioned in the registered sale deed. Such excess cash is deposited by the taxpayer in his bank.

Rejecting the explanation that the deposit represented sale value of agricultural land the revenue taxed such excess as unexplained money u/s 69A on the basis of confirmation of the buyer.

Admitting that the addition of cash deposit is due to lack of verification by the Revenue authorities the ITAT set aside the case for a further verification on the strength of the following amended ground of appeal presented by the taxpayer:

“That the learned Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) wrongly confirmed addition being made/confirmed merely on the basis of simple letter of buyer sent to the Assessing Officer, without issuing notice under section 131 or record ing statement of buyer and further ignored all the facts, affidavits, explanations and bank statements of rest of the sellers, who also deposited same cash, who also sold same share of land and all agree ment were execute same day and further the Revenue has not brought any evidence on record, indicating the source of ‘undisclosed cash’ and further no addition is made in case of rest of the sellers of same land by the Revenue which is vice versa a corroborative and addition is bad in law.”

Thus the letter of the buyer is not a conclusive evidence in such situations and more certainly the AO is required to make his own inquiries,  record statements and carry out further verifications to explanations with corroborating evidence made by the taxpayer before dislodging them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

error: Do not copy the content of this website.