SHAKILA FAKRUDDIN GOLANDAJ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX AUTHORITY, PUNE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the A.Y 2013-14. Based on the information about huge cash deposit, notice u/s 148 of the Act validly served upon the assessee by carrying out the reassessment proceedings. The assessee stated to be engaged in the poultry farming business since 01.06.20211 after taking permission of local authority. Ld. AO observed that during the year assessee has introduced additional capital of Rs. 8,81,000/- but the assessee could not explain the source thereof, resulting into the addition u/s 69A of the Act. Income assessed at Rs. 12,45,960/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) but in spite of the assessee having been provided sufficient opportunity only general submissions were made which were not sufficient to explain the source of alleged addition in the capital resulting into dismissal of the appeal. In the impugned order ld. CIT(A) has referred to certain additional evidences filed by the assessee but when the remand report was forwarded to the appellant, there was no rebuttal, ld. CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the assessee appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the written submissions providing the details of source of additional capital introduced during the year along with the affidavit and land holding of assessee’s husband giving cash gift of Rs. 3,70,000/-, details of business account of assessee’s son who has gifted Rs. 3,60,000/- in cash. Based on these documents it is claimed that impugned addition deserves to be deleted.

On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the lower authorities.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. The only issue for consideration is the addition for unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 8,81,000/-, I note that the assessee is carrying on poultry farming business and during the year capital of Rs. 8,81,000 is introduced which is bone of contention because assessee failed to explain the source thereof before both the lower authorities.

I have gone through the written submissions and details filed therein and observe that the assessee claimed to have received cash gift from her husband at Rs. 3,70,000/- which has been derived by him from agricultural income sources and he also holds agricultural land. Further it is claimed that the assessee’s son is carrying on the business and out of his business income he has gifted Rs. 3,60,000/- to his mother. The details in support of cash gift of Rs. 3,70,000/- & Rs. 3,60,000/- seems to have been placed for the first time before this Tribunal and there is no discussion about the same in the impugned order as well as assessment order. As regards remaining sum of Rs. 1,51,000/- on due consideration of the non-taxable limit for the individual assessee and that the poultry farming business have commenced from 01.06.2011 onwards, it can be presumed that assessee had accumulated savings for past many years out of which Rs. 1,51,000/- has been introduced during the year.

I therefore under the given facts and circumstances of the case firstly delete the addition of Rs. 1,51,000/- as the source thereof is from the accumulated savings. For the remaining addition of Rs. 7,30,000/- allegedly received as cash gift from assessee’s husband and son at Rs. 3,70,000/- and Rs. 3,60,000/- respectively, since the documents explaining the source of cash gift and also the agricultural land holding of assessee’s husband and the bank statement and business income details of assessee’s son have been placed before this tribunal for the first time, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter of unexplained money of Rs. 7,30,000/- (as discussed supra) to the file of ld. JAO for afresh adjudication to be carried out after considering the details furnished by the assessee. Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings ld. JAO shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the documents to be filed by the assessee and then decide the issue in accordance with law.

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

""थ" / The Respondent.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब"च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,