CIT-III, LUDHIANA vs. SONIA DHILLON

of its judgment recorded as under -

. 209 2010 of “

I have carefully considered the contention of

learned counsel for the appellant and perused the .

relevant record Though the appellant did not avail

the opportunity for furnishing the necessary

, information before the Assessing Officer the

documents being copy of bank account of the ,

appellant which is in question and the statement

.

being very much on the file of the DDIT and

which information is stated to have been obtained

3

by the Assessing Officer as per para of the ,

assessment order the Assessing Officer should

have taken these documents into consideration for

. ,

deciding the issue in hand Further in view of the

facts and circumstances explained by the appellant

, . . and which have been discussed above i e

-

appellant’s husband being bed ridden on account of

being chronic heart patient and the appellant being

only person in the family to look after him and

further she herself having suffered from depression

-

. 209 2010 of etc the additional documents which are just

corroborating the factual position already stated in

the statement dated and the evidence

which goes to the root of the issue in hand and is

very much relevant to impart substantial justice are . admitted

,

Coming to the merits of the case as

. 1,50,000/-

. far as the credits of Rs and Rs 6,22,837/- 5.4.1999 7.5.1999 , on and respectively

. 121

in the bank account No in Canara Bank are ,

concerned it has been consistently stated that

these documents were received on account of

maturity of certain policies from Peerls Green

.,

.

Forest Ltd New Delhi The amounts are shown to

be received by cheque as per the copy of bank

. ,

account itself

Therefore this contention of the

appellant being verifiable from the record is to be .

accepted It is further seen that the premium

whatsoever paid in respect of these policies was

paid during the period earlier to the period relevant

-

. 209 2010 of to assessment year under consideration Though it

is shown that these policies were originally

,

purchased by Shri Shad Nicklas a paternal uncle

,

to the appellant and that the premium whatsoever

,

were paid by him without going into this aspect of

the case even if the sources of the same are

,

taken to be explained the adverse inference could

be drawn only for the assessment year during

. ,

which the premium was paid However keeping in

,

view the factual position as above as far as 2000-01

, assessment year is concerned no

adverse inference could be drawn against the .

. 7,72,837/- appellant The addition of Rs treating

, , these receipts to be unexplained is therefore not

. in order and the same is accordingly deleted ”

. 6,50,000/-

As regards deletion of Rs from

. 12,50,000/-,

loan amount of Rs the Tribunal recorded as : under -

. 209 2010 of “

Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer was also

. informed that the assessee has given loan of Rs 12,50,000/-

, . to Shri Surjit Singh Nanda Smt

/ .

. Sharanjit Kaur and to M s Goodwill Metals Ltd It

was further pointed out that the assessee filed a

,

suit in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ludhiana to

the fact that the aforesaid loan has not been .

returned The learned Assessing Officer was of

the view that the assessee has not explained the

. 12,50,000/-, , source of Rs consequently it was

, treated that the amount has escaped assessment

consequently added as unexplained income of the .

,

assessee On appeal the learned first appellate

. 6

authority found that the loan of Rs lakh paid to

, , Shri Surjit Singh is not explained consequently the

addition to this extent was confirmed and the

. 6,50,000/-

remaining amount of Rs was deleted

which is under challenge by the Revenue before

.

the Tribunal We have found that out of total loan

. 12,50,000/-,

. of Rs the amount of Rs

-

. 209 2010 of 6,50,000/-

. was paid from same bank account No 121

. 31306 6.4.1999 vide cheque No dated and 10.5.1999 .

,

respectively Even otherwise it is not

the case that the learned first appellate authority

blindly accepted the contention of the assessee

,

rather wherever he was not satisfied he has not

accepted the explanation extended by the , ,

assessee

therefore we have not found any

,

, infirmity in the impugned order on this issue also

. consequently this ground is dismissed ”

Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal

. 7,72,000/- was in error in upholding the deletion of Rs

( )

made by the CIT A on account of unexplained deposit to the

.

income of the assessee It was argued that the finding

( )

recorded by the CIT A and affirmed by the Tribunal that a

. 6,00,000/-

sum of Rs was the explained amount of the ,

,

. assessee is erroneous perverse and against the record

,

According to the learned counsel the evidence on record has

. not been properly appreciated by the appellate authority

-

. 209 2010 of Learned counsel for the Revenue made strenuous

-

efforts to persuade this Court to re appreciate the evidence

.

and record fresh conclusion on the basis thereof But the

-

- counsel could not point out any mis reading or mis

appreciation of evidence on the basis of which it could be

( ),

recorded that the findings of CIT A which were approved

,

. by the Tribunal were erroneous or perverse in any manner

The view taken by the authorities below is plausible view

. based on appreciation of evidence available on record No , ,

. , exception can

therefore be taken to said findings We ,

260

therefore in exercise of our juri iction under Section A

-

of the Act would not like to re appreciate the evidence

available on record and record a different conclusion on the

basis thereof as sought to be contended by the learned

. counsel for the appellant

-

. 209 2010 of ,

In view of the above we are of the opinion that

the substantial questions of law proposed on behalf of the

Revenue do not arise in this case that may attract attention

.

of this Court for decision The appeal is consequently . dismissed (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) July 21, 2010 JUDGE *rkmalik*