MITESHKUMAR DHANJIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5) PREVIOUS WARD-3(3)(14), AHMEDABAD

Now, the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following ground has been taken in this appeal: -

Shri Pritesh Shah, the Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the assessee along with his wife had purchased a residential bungalow No.39 Panchamrut Villa, Sola, Ahmedabad for a consideration of Rs.50,00,000/. He explained that out of total consideration, a sum of Rs.49,00,000/- was paid by the wife of the assessee and only Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the assessee. He submitted that in the purchase deed the assessee’s wife Shilaben Miteshkumar Patel was the first buyer and the assessee was the second buyer. As regarding source of investment, the Ld. AR explained Assessment Year: 2011-12 Miteshkumar Dhanjibhai Patel vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 that the assessee’s wife had received Rs.49,00,000/- from her father Shri Nagarbhai Shankarbhai Patel. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not allowed sufficient opportunity by the Assessing Officer to explain the source of investment. However, the details in this regard were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who had rejected the explanation of the assessee without calling for any remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s father-in-law had also filed a confirmation regarding advance of Rs.49,00,000/- to his daughter Smt. Shilaben Miteshkumar Patel who was the first owner of the property. Considering these facts, no addition was called for in the hands of the assessee.

Per contra, Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the explanation of the assessee for the reason that the creditworthiness of the father-in-law of the assessee, for advancing Rs.49,00,000/-, was not established. He, therefore, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions. It is found from the assessment order that the source of investment of Rs.50,00,000/- in the purchase of property was not explained before the AO. However, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed an explanation in respect of source of investment in the property. It was submitted that the sum of Rs.49,00,000/- was received from the assessee’s father-in-law in the Bank account of his wife Smt. Shilaben Miteshkumar Patel. The payment of Rs.35,00,000/- was made directly to the seller through the bank account of the assessee’s wife and a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- was transferred to the assessee’s account which was utilised for making the payment for purchase of property. A confirmation of Shri Nagarbhai Shankarbhai Assessment Year: 2011-12 Miteshkumar Dhanjibhai Patel vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 Patel, father-in-law of the assessee, along with copy of his ITR was also filed before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact, these were additional evidences filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on which no remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) on his own has given a finding that the creditworthiness of the assessee’s father-in-law was not established. It is found from copy of ITR of Shri Nagarbhai Shankarbhai Patel that he had disclosed income of Rs.52,28,000/- in the A.Y. 2011-12. Considering the evidences brought on record by the assessee in the course of appeal proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in out-rightly rejecting the same without calling for the remand report from the AO or any further explanation from the assessee. In the interest of justice, we, therefore, deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the additional evidences brought on record by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of appal proceeding and, thereafter, re-adjudicate the matter.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.