Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, in dated 30.10.2018. The Assessment was framed by ITO Non-Corporate Ward - 15(1), Chennai U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide order dated 28.03.2016.
At the outset it is seen from the various grounds raised by the assessee, the following four issues are arising:- i. Addition of Rs.1,00,000/- being difference in share of amount received on sale of land at Selaiyur. ii. Addition made being unexplained loan from sister Smt. Priya amounting to Rs.15,30,000/-. iii. Addition of unexplained loan from father Shri Sundaramurthy amounting to Rs.19,12,000/-. iv. Addition of accumulated balance of Rs.11,00,000/- as on 31.03.2012.
At the outset the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee before CIT(A) has filed detailed submissions which are reproduced in para 4.2 at pages 4 to 9 of CIT(A)’s order but he drew our attention to the findings of CIT(A) in para’s 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 which reads as under:- “4.3.1. The additions made by the AO as part of assessment proceedings involve proving the sources for the investment made by the appellant jointly along with her sisters in a property located at Mogappair village. The appellant’s share of investment in the property is Rs.88.95 Lakhs out of a total investment of Rs.2.66 crores by all the parties. The AO accepted the sources for the investment to the extent of Rs.42.53 lakhs. The AO did not accept the explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the rest of the sources as it was not supported by verifyable supporting documents. Therefore, the AO made the additions to the extent of Rs.46.42 lakhs as unexplained investment u/s 69.
4.3.2. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant made written submission reiterating the same points already considered by the AO. The AO has given elaborate reasons for not accepting the explanation offered by the appellant which the appellant could not controvert. After taking into account both the points of view, the additions made by the AO are confirmed and the appellant’s grounds are dismissed.”
The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that none of the facts were discussed by the CIT(A) in regard to these unsecured loans or accumulated balance or the amount received on sale of land (being amount on account of scrap sale of boundary pillars and iron fences and grill doors). The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that even the evidences placed before AO was not appreciated by the AO or by the CIT(A). We noted that the assessee has filed few of the documents but not all the supporting evidences to prove the amount received being sale of scrap on account of boundary pillars, iron fences and grill doors. Even the unexplained loans from sister Smt.Priya and from father Shri Sundaramurthy was not proved properly. Even the evidence on accumulated balance was not filed. Now the ld.counsel for the assessee before us stated that he is ready to file all the documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of all the issues, in case the matter is restored to the file of the AO. When these facts are pointed out to the ld.senior Departmental
Representative, he also fairly agreed that matter may be restored back to the file of the AO.
After hearing both the sides and going through the documents, we are of the view that one opportunity must be given to the assessee to prove her case in regard to sale of scrap, unsecured loans from sister and father and accumulated balance. Needless to say that the assessee will file all the details before the AO and the AO will examine all the evidences as per law and decide the issues afresh. Hence, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the court on 29th December, 2020 at Chennai.