ABDUS SATTAR,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BURDWAN

Though the Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time barred, however, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C ) No. 3 of 2020, the period of filing appeal during the COVID-19 pandemic is to be excluded for the purpose of counting the

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 8,50,000/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of investment from undisclosed sources.

Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 21.03.2013 disclosing total income of Rs. 3,22,880/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee has returned his income u/s 44AD of the Act from the sales of Paddy and Rice etc. of Rs. 2,37,420/-, income from Firm of Rs. 1,55,159/-, income from other sources of Rs. 4,826/- and agricultural income of Rs. 8,800/-. The AO observed from the AIR information that assessee he has made some investment in property during the year with 1/3rd share in the property with other co-owners Sk. Korban, Abdul Moktar which was purchased for Rs. 2,30,00,000/-. The AO observed that the loan borrowed for the purchase of said property was only 1,42,00,000/- and there was a gap in the money invested and availabile sources for the purchase of said property. The AO, after analyzing the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2011 and 31.03.2012 at page no. 4 of the assessment order, came to the conclusion that the assessee had short funds to the tune of Rs. 47,12,672/- (1/3rd of total consideration of Rs. 2,48,63,016 i.e 82,87672 minus Rs. 35,75,000 shown as investment in B/S as at 31.03.2012).the AO further observed that the assesse has shown share of loan obtained for the property at Rs. 47,64,995/-whereas the actual share of the assessee being 1/3rd of the sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 1,42,00,000/-comes to Rs. 47,33,333/- and thus there is a suppression to the extent of Rs. 31,662/- based on the above discussion. The AO made addition of Rs. 47,44,334/- in the hands of the assessee besides making other additions in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 20.03.2015.

The assessee challenged the order of AO before the appellate authority and the The assessee challenged the order of AO before the appellate authority and the The assessee challenged the order of AO before the appellate authority and the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition to the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition to the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- being gifted being gifted by elder brother Sk. Moslem. The Ld. CIT(A) has elder brother Sk. Moslem. The Ld. CIT(A) has called for a remand report from the AO in the appellate proceedings which was called for a remand report from the AO in the appellate proceedings which was called for a remand report from the AO in the appellate proceedings which was confronted to the assessee and assessee filed detailed reply in response thereto and confronted to the assessee and assessee filed detailed reply in response thereto and confronted to the assessee and assessee filed detailed reply in response thereto and only thereafter the Ld. CIT(A only thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. However the ) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. However the addition to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/ addition to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- was sustained which was on account of cash gift was sustained which was on account of cash gift received by the assessee from his brother received by the assessee from his brother on which the remand report was totally on which the remand report was totally silent. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed . The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition on the ground that brother of the assessee that brother of the assessee did not have sufficient sources as his income during the year was only Rs. 1,89,254/ not have sufficient sources as his income during the year was only Rs. 1,89,254/ not have sufficient sources as his income during the year was only Rs. 1,89,254/- whereas he has gifted Rs. 8,50,000/ whereas he has gifted Rs. 8,50,000/- to the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of First appellate authority pre Aggrieved by the order of First appellate authority preferred an appeal before ferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. A.R submitted before the Bench that the money was received from the The Ld. A.R submitted before the Bench that the money was received from the The Ld. A.R submitted before the Bench that the money was received from the elder brother SK. Moslem who had returned income to the tune of Rs. 1,89,254/ elder brother SK. Moslem who had returned income to the tune of Rs. 1,89,254/ elder brother SK. Moslem who had returned income to the tune of Rs. 1,89,254/- after claiming deduction u/s 50C 0C to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/-.The Ld. A.R also brought to The Ld. A.R also brought to our notice that the computation of income as on 31.03.2012 and balanc the computation of income as on 31.03.2012 and balanc the computation of income as on 31.03.2012 and balance sheet as on 31.03.2012 as placed at page 2 of paper book is extracted below: s placed at page 2 of paper book is extracted below:

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.