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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 447/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 April 2019AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the source of funds to be genuine, especially considering the brother is an NRI and the majority of the funds were accepted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a salaried employee, purchased a row house for Rs. 60,00,000. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 2,52,676 as unexplained investment, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed the funds were from savings, bank loans, and his brother working abroad.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 2,52,676 as unexplained investment in a property is justified when the assessee provided sources of funds, including from an NRI brother.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jadhav
For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad dated 08-01-2018 for the assessment year 2014-15.

2 ITA No. 447/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014-15

2.

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.

Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 18-10-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was also not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and hence, confirmed the addition. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The solitary ground raised by assessee in appeal before the Tribunal is : “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,52,676/- u/s. 69 of the Act made by the learned AO on account of unexplained investments.”

3 ITA No. 447/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014-15

3.

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.

4.

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

5.

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

4 ITA No. 447/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014-15

5% funds gathered by assessee for purchase of house. The explanation/source of Rs.2,52,676/- furnished by the assessee appears to be genuine. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (अननऱ चतुवेदी / Anil Chaturvedi) (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 18th April, 2019. RK आदेश की प्रनतलऱवऩ अग्रेवर्त / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad 3. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aurangabad ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “एक-सदस्य मामऱा” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रनत // True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

ननजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →