Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a retired Block Development Officer, purchased a flat for Rs. 30.20 lakhs in assessment year 2010-2011. The Assessing Officer treated the entire purchase as undisclosed income as not all details were provided. The assessee submitted evidence of loans from SBI and his wife, and proof of payment through bank account.
Held
The CIT(A) accepted the loan claims but treated the payment through the assessee's bank account as unexplained. The Tribunal observed that payments were made through the bank, and there was no allegation of cash deposits before the cheque issuance, thus the source for the investment was explained.
Key Issues
Whether the payment made through bank account for purchase of flat is to be treated as unexplained income when loans are duly evidenced.
Sections Cited
IT Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC BENCH”, PATNA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Raj Kumar Sharma, Vs ITO, Ward-5, Patna S/o Shri Ram Chandra Sharma Gabhatal, Danapur, PO: Digha Danapur, Patna, Bihar. PAN No. :AQAPS 0820 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Jyoti, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.04.2024 for the assessment year 2010-2011.
Shri Pankaj Jyoti, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashwani Kumar, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is a retired Block Development Officer. It was the submission that during the assessment year 2010-2011 the assessee had purchased a flat at a cost of Rs.30.20 lakhs. It was the submission that admittedly the assessee had not provided all the details before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer treated the entire purchase as undisclosed income of the assessee. It was the submission that before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee had produced the Rs.16.10 lakhs from State Bank of India, loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the account of assessee’s wife and proof of payment of Rs.11.10 lakhs by the assessee through his bank account. It was submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has accepted the claim of the assessee in respect of the loan from SBI and loan from her wife but had treated the entire payment made by the assessee through his bank account as unexplained. It was the prayer that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.
In reply, ld.Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld.AO and ld. CIT(A) and drew the attention of the Bench to page 14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) has extracted the break up cost of Rs.30.20 lakhs. Out of Rs.30.20 lakhs, after reducing the amount of loan of Rs.16.10 lakhs taken from SBI, the break up is shown in respect of Rs.15 lakhs. It was the submission that the assessee has not produced any proof as has been mentioned by the ld.CIT(A) and prayed that the orders of both the authorities below should be upheld.
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the statement chart as prepared by the ld. CIT(A) at page 14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the payments have been made through bank. There is no allegation that any cash deposit has been taken place in the bank before issuance of the cheque. This being so, I am of the view that the assessee has explained the source for investment in the flat. Consequently, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted.