DASHRATH BALWANT BARNE (HUF),PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1), PUNE

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 168 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due

The sole issue for our consideration is against the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.50,00,000/-.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an HUF and did not file the regular return of income. Thereafter, based on the information from insight portal about the FDRs amounting to Rs.2,36,17,578/-, valid notice u/s.148 of the Act issued and served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.36,59,080/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer examined the bank statement and noticed that on 26.06.2014 there is credit entry of Rs.50.00 lakhs which the assessee stated to be not a taxable receipt as it is received on behalf of Karta. However, in absence of any documentary evidence explaining the source of said sum ld. Assessing Officer invoked section 69A of the Act and made addition of Rs.50.00 lakh and assessed income at Rs.86,59,080/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and failed to succeed. Ld.CT(A) has observed that assessee has not submitted any supporting documents regarding source of credit. Assessee has not explained how the amount of Rs.50.00 lakh is not taxable. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book running into 20 pages submitted that alleged sum was received from M/s. Shree Anand Venkateshwara Construction and that in the subsequent F.Y. 2015-16 the loan amount has been repaid on 23.07.2015. Ld. Counsel for the assessee raised no objection if the matter is restored to the file of ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer for necessary verification and examining all the documents filed before this Tribunal.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. The sole issue for our consideration is addition u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.50.00 lakh. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the documentary evidence filed in the paper book stating that the alleged sum has been received from partnership firm namely M/s. Shree Anand Venkateshwara Construction on behalf of Karta of HUF. Confirmation letter from the alleged cash creditor is placed at page 7 of the paper book along with the copy of income tax return and computation. Further, bank statement of the cash creditor is also filed stating that the alleged sum has been paid subsequently in the F.Y. 2015-16. With the documents, assessee tried to plead that Identity, creditworthiness of the cash creditor and genuineness of the transaction is proved. We however considering the fact that these details were never

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

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,