SUPRAKASH SAHA,BAGUIHATI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 52(1), KOLKATA

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of disallowance of ₹16,36,800/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of investment by the assessee in LIC.

At the outset, we observe from the appellate folder that there is a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition stating that the delay to be on account of medical issue such as acute hypertension etc. for which the medical certificate is attached.

So far as the facts of the issue are concerned, I note that in this case, the assessee filed the return of income on 10.03.2014, declaring the total income of ₹2,49,800/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, which was also replied by the assessee by filing the return of income on 26.09.2013, declaring the total income of ₹4,20,340/-. The reopening was made on the ground that the assessee invested in LIC in cash of ₹16,36,800/-. Accordingly, the statutory notices were served and assessee duly replied the said notices. The ld. AO finally made the addition of ₹16,36,800/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition.

I note that the assessee is a retired employee of Government of India and received ₹83 lacs as retirement benefits out of the said 83 lacs, the assessee invested ₹30 lacs in I-Core Services Ltd through account payee cheque dated 29.12.2011. On the same day the assessee bought LIC by investing 32,76,764/-( in two installments of ₹16,38,800/- by account payee cheques drwn non SBI). Thereafter, at the time of maturity of FDR with I-Core Services Limited a cheque was issued dated 04.01.2013, which got bounced, a copy of which is available at page no.10 of the Paper Book. Thereafter, the assessee was paid a cash and out of the said cash, the assessee paid LIC instalments of ₹16,38,800/- , which according to AO is unexplained and added to the income of the assessee . In our opinion, the addition made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is wrong and cannot be sustained on the basis of the facts available before us, which were duly corroborated with

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.