SAPNA RAJANI,AJMER vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL (INTT. TAXATION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

It may be mentioned here that while partly allowing the appeal, Learned CIT(A) restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer only to a sum of Rs. 92,85,012/-. Said addition was made while resorting to provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) as the assessee was found to have invested Rs. A sum of Rs.82,85,012/- with Bank of Baroda and earned interest to the tune of Rs. 233/-, but, the assessee had failed to produce any documentary evidence to explain source of said investment.

While giving respite to the appellant in part, Learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee had explained before him source of investment made by her in the form of FDs amounting to Rs. 1,09,23,360/-, by submitted details of FDRs and copy of bank statement.

Even though the addition was restricted to the tune of Rs. 43,61,652/- , feeling aggrieved by the appellant is before this Appellate Tribunal.

Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that in view of the claim put forth by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and also before Learned CIT(A) regarding source of investment made by her, instead of Sapna Rajani partly allowing the appeal, Learned CIT(A) should have deleted the entire addition i.e. even as regards the balance addition of Rs. 43,61,652/-.

As is available from para 8.2 of the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), the assessee claimed to have invested Rs. 1,09,23,360/- in purchase of FDRs. Learned CIT(A) was satisfied about the said claim of the assessee from the certificates issued by two branches of Bank of Baroda, which confirmed that all the fixed deposits were actually extension of fixed deposits already made, and further that all FDRs were NRE FDs. In this regard, Learned CIT(A) also expressed satisfaction from the testimony of the assessee as contained in her affidavit. When Learned CIT(A) was so satisfied regarding deposits by the assessee already made, that all the fixed deposits were actually renewals of the said previous fixed deposits and also that the FDRs were NRE FDs, in the course of arguments, we have enquired from Ld. DR for the department as to what weighed with Ld. CIT(A) only to partly allow the appeal, while restricting the addition of Rs. 43,61,652/-, instead of fully allowing the appeal.

In reply Ld. DR for the department has submitted that initially before the Assessing Officer the claim of the assessee was that she had Sapna Rajani deposited only Rs. 60,00,000/-, and it was for the first time before Learned CIT(A), that she was able to prove the source of investment of Rs. 1,09,23,360/- in the form of FDs.

Even if initially the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer about time deposit of Rs. 60,00,000/-, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the assessee had insufficient time before the Assessing Officer so as to explain the things as regard total investment made by her, and that the Assessing Officer came with the assessment order in haste.

Be that as it may, in view of the abovesaid certificates issued by two branch of Bank of Baroda, from which Learned CIT(A) was satisfied about source of investments, it was for the department to bring on record material if any, to suggest that the assessee had deposited another sum of Rs. 43,61,652/- but failed to explain its source. However, there is nothing in the impugned order to suggest that any material was produced before Learned CIT(A), in this regard. In the given situation, when the department failed to establish that the assessee had invested another sum of Rs. 43,61,652/-, there was no question of her explaining the source of any such amount.