SMT. ANJANA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR

per of the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any reply, therefore, addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- U/s 68 of the Act was made by the A.O. on account of cash paid for purchase of property and he also invoked Section 115BBE of the Act.

6,00,000/- were pending. Subsequently, this Property was finally purchased through registered deed by the assessee on 07/11/2012. In the registered documents, earlier payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- were recorded and further payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- paid in cash on 07/11/2012 was also recorded.

As per above two documents Rs. 11,00,000/- were paid in cash, Rs. 5,00,000/- on 15/10/2012 and Rs. 6,00,000/- on 07/11/2012. For explaining the source of cash payment of Rs. 11,00,000/-, the assessee filed cash flow statement of self and her husband Shri Naveen Sharma where the assessee has shown Rs. 2,50,000/- paid by Smt. Anjana Sharma on 07/11/2012 while Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,50,000/- were paid by Shri Naveen Sharma on 15/10/2012 and 07/11/2012 respectively. In the revised cash flow statement filed during the appellate proceedings we noticed that opening cash balance of Rs. 5,91,156 has been disclosed and a large number of loans below Rs. 20,000/- has been shown in the above cash flow statement.

In the cash flow of Shri Naveen Sharma (the husband of the assessee) again the opening cash of Rs. 5,35,192/- has been disclosed besides number of cash loans below 20,000/-.

per returns of the assessee, the assessee has shown income of Rs. 12.30 lacs and if it is presumed that a female can easily save 50% of her income and 50% can be treated for drawings. According to that she can have source to the extent of Rs. 6.15 lacs thus the source of amount shown by the assessee of purchase of property can be treated explained. Further the husband of the assessee Shri Naveen Sharma who has given cash of Rs. 8.50 Lacs to the assessee (wife) for purchasing of the property in question.

As Naveen Sharma since starting accepting and confirming that he had given cash of Rs. 8.50 lacs to her wife for purchasing of the property even before the issuance of notice U/s 148 of the Act. During the enquiry U/s 133(6) vide letter dated 14/08/2014, PB-35 to the ITO, Intelligence-II, Jaipur also filed the balance sheet of Naveen Sharma which is at page No. 37 of the paper book. Further the assessee has also filed copy of affidavits and their identifications (PB 112-144) of the persons from whom they have taken cash loans. Thus the assessee has fully explained the source of Rs. 11,00,000/- with the evidences filed before them and discharged the onus lay upon her. Thus, in our view, no additions can be made until and unless the evidences filed by the assessee were rebutted and discarded and by 15 ITA 1214/JP/2019_ Smt. Anjana Sharma Vs ITO bringing any contrary evidences and materials and no addition can be made on the basis of assumption/ presumptions and guess work. Further when the husband of the assessee from the starting has confirmed of giving cash of Rs. 8.50 lacs as he is a regular income tax assessee and all the data given by him were very well available before the AO. Therefore, on the basis of the documents, no addition could be made. If the A.O. was having any doubt regarding the source of cash of Rs. 8.50 lacs by the Shri Naveen Sharma (Husband of the assessee) he could have made the addition in his hands but not in the hands of the assessee. Thus, in view of the above discussion as well as material placed on record, we found merit in the contention of the ld. AR and hence we directed to delete the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- sustained by the Ld. CIT (A). We order accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2021.