SHRI AMIT AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23rd April, 2019 of ld. CIT (A)-2, Jaipur for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-

Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Kindly delete the entire addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

We have heard the ld. D/R and carefully perused the impugned orders passed by the AO as well as the ld. CIT (A). The AO has made the addition on account of unexplained investment in FDR of Rs. 5,00,000/- after rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the said amount was received by the assessee as gift from his mother. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO on the ground that due to the gap of 2 years between the property sold by the mother and alleged gift received by the assessee the explanation is not justified. Since the assessee has claimed the source of deposit as FDR as gift received from the mother and also produced the evidence for sale of property by the mother, therefore, the gap of 2 years is required to be explained by the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee intends to opt for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A) and remand the matter to the record of the ld. CIT (A) for granting one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the gap of 2 years between the sale of property by the mother and gift given to the assessee. Status of the assessee’s appeal will remain pending before the ld. CIT (A) as against before this Tribunal, therefore, the assessee may opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, if so desired.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.