NAMASIVAYAM ARUNPRASAD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTL TAXN WARD-2(1), CHENNAI

The assessee raised 8 grounds of appeal, amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A)

At the outset, we note that the assessee is a non-resident Indian and no return of income filed. The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee purchased immovable property paying consideration of ₹.2,23,44,500/-. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of ₹. NIL, but, however, neither any explanation nor details filed with regard to the sources of investment with documentary evidence. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the entire sale consideration to the income of the assessee vide his draft assessment order dated 16.03.2024 passed under section 144C(1) of the Act. The assessee challenged the same before the DRP and the DRP directed the Assessing Officer by modifying the variation and complete the assessment as per remand report. The Assessing Officer, in his final assessment order, held that the assessee could not explain the source of payment of ₹.8,30,000/- with documentary evidence. Having

The ld. AR Shri S. Ramanathan, Advocate submits that the assessee shown source for investments for the purchase of house property and drew our attention to the page 1 of the paper book. The assessee availed house loan from HDFC of ₹.1,50,00,000/-, out of earnings from abroad ₹.39,51,848/-, own savings ₹.82,053/-, LIC policy maturity ₹.71,5000/- and funds from family members at ₹.8,30,000/- and supporting the same, the assessee has given every details. He argued that the Assessing Officer did not give any relief of fund arising out of family members. The ld. AR drew our attention to the statement of investment in property at page 1 & 2 of the paper book. The ld. AR submits that the assessee availed funds from his brother between 17.05.2014 and 27.05.2014 and drew our attention to page 5 of the paper book. Further, the assessee availed fund from his wife on 12.11.2014 to an extent of ₹.2,00,000/- and drew our attention to page 7 of the paper book. Further, he drew our attention to page 13 of the paper book and submits that the father-in-law of the assessee offered ₹.1,30,000/-. He argued that no addition is maintainable in view of the evidences furnished by the assessee.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order against which, the assessee filed objection before the DRP. While considering the objections, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry under section 144(7) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, in his final assessment order, held that the assessee could not explain the source for payment of ₹.8,30,000/-. But, however, before us, the ld. AR drew our attention to the evidences to the source of payments were raised from assessee’s family members. On perusal of page 1 & 2 of the paper book, we find that the assessee stated the sources for payment of sale consideration. We note that from the said statement, the assessee availed loan from HDFC Bank, own fund out of earnings, LIC policy maturity and family support. There is no dispute with regard to own fund out of earning, housing loan from HDFC and LIC policy maturity. We find the only dispute is with regard to funds availed from family members. On perusal of page 5 of the paper book, which is Indian Bank statement, on examination of the same, we find that on 17.05.2014 & 27.05.2014, & S.A. No. 24/Chny/25 ₹.1 lakh and ₹.4 lakhs were received by the assessee from his brother. Further, on perusal of page 7 of the paper book, the assessee received ₹.2 lakhs from his wife by name Mrs. R. Sarada on 12.11.2014. Again on 08.12.2014, he received ₹.1,30,000/- though cheque from Mr. Ramanathan. We find, on verification of the same, that the assessee explained entire sale consideration towards investment in immovable property by availing loan from HDFC, own earnings, LIC policy maturity and funds from his family members. But, however, the Assessing Officer did not give credit to the same, thereby, in our opinion, the addition of ₹.8,30,000/- is not maintainable. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing officer in his final assessment order of ₹.8,30,000/- is deleted and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

The Stay Application filed by the assessee in S.A. No. 24/Chny/2025 was also heard along with the main appeal. Since we have adjudicated the main appeal by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the stay petition filed by the assessee become infructuous and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed. Order pronounced on 12th March, 2025 at Chennai.