RAM BALAPRASAD ZANWAR,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - PARBHANI,, PARBHANI

The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is a salaried employee. The assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 27-03-2015 declaring total income of Rs.3,53,230/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased a Row House No. B-2 at Choudhary – Thakkar – Pride situated at Gut No. 83, Itkheda, Aurangabad for a total consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the source of investment in the aforesaid house. The assessee furnished the details of source for making investment for the purchase of aforesaid property. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee to the extent of Rs.2,52,676/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of the aforesaid amount as unexplained investment.

Shri Pramod Jadhav appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee had furnished the details of source of investments for purchase of house. To fund the investment of Rs.60,00,000/-, the assessee had raised loan of Rs.47,00,000/- from State Bank of India, Rs.25,000/- was paid in cash from own savings, Rs.10,50,000/- was paid through account payee cheque and Rs.2,25,000/- was paid by his brother who is working in Singapore. The assessee has filed bank details of his brother to show that cash withdrawals were made by his brother for making payment to assessee on various dates.

On the other hand Shri M.K. Verma representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee.

We have heard the submissions made by the representative of rival sides and have perused the documents available on record. The solitary issue in appeal is against the addition of Rs.2,52,676/- in respect of unexplained investments in house. The assessee is a salaried employee. The assessee has purchased the house with his savings, loan from the bank and unsecured loans from various persons. The assessee has purportedly taken cash from his brother on various dates for purchase of house. The authorities below have disbelieved funding of Rs.97,676/- by the brother of assessee. The brother of the assessee is NRI and is working in Singapore. This fact has not been disputed by the Department. Thus, the brother of assessee must be man of means to at least fund Rs.1,00,000/- approx. Having accepted 95% of the total source of funds for purchase of house, we find no reason to doubt the source of remaining

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.