Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld.
CIT(A)-Ujjain dated 04.10.2017 on the ground that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,90,000/- as undisclosed investment made by the Assessing Officer.
SMC – Puran Gawli 2 of 2018 2. Facts giving rise to the ground of appeal are that the assessee is an individual carrying on business activities of running vehicle on hire. Return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,62,500/- was filed on 31.3.2012. A survey was conducted on the premises of third party i.e. Mr. Dilip Patidar on 09.7.2013 u/s 133A wherein a diary was impounded which included hand written record of Mr. Dilip Patidar. The diary included an entry of Rs.1,90,000/- which was shown to be received from the assessee as loan. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,90,000/- in the hands of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed investment. Aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action the Assessing Officer. Thus, the assessee is before this Tribunal.
Before me, the assessee or his learned AR did not appear.
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue
SMC – Puran Gawli 3 of 2018 Authorities and submitted that the assessee could not be able to explain the source of Rs.1,90,000/-.
I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on the file. Nobody represented the assessee, therefore, the assessee’s case is decided on the basis of material available on record. If I go through the order of the ld. CIT(A), I find that before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the assessee had given loan to Shri Dilip Patidar, which was found recorded in the documents inspected during survey proceedings.
The assessee is illiterate and lacks knowledge in assessment related matters. During the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in activities of running vehicle on hire, for which, he had to remain out of station frequently. The assessee had sold an ancestral property in form of rural agriculture land in the immediately preceding assessment year 2010-11. This property was jointly owned by him along with other family
SMC – Puran Gawli 4 of 2018 members. The total sale consideration received for this property was Rs.17,48,000/- which was equally shared by all the co- owners. The assessee’s 1/5th share amounted to Rs.3,49,600/-.
Out of this receipt only, the disputed amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was given by the assessee to Shri Dilip Patidar as an advance. The copy of registry was furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the same and confirmed the addition stating that the burden of proof is always on the assessee.
On consideration of above facts, I find that it is undisputed fact that the property was sold and the copy of the registry was also furnished before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) did not comment upon the registry and simply confirmed the addition. Therefore, in my view, when the assessee submitted that the total sale consideration received in respect of the property was Rs.17,48,000/- and 1/5th share amounted to Rs.3,49,600/- was of the assessee, out of this receipt only, the disputed amount of SMC – Puran Gawli 5 of 2018 Rs.1,90,000/- was given by the assessee to Shri Dilip Patidar as an advance, therefore, the assessee has explained the source of loan amount. This fact should have been appreciated by the ld. CIT(A). But the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same. Therefore, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.1,90,000/- .
In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 09.1.2020.