LATA MARADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO -33(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 09-03- 2018 passed by Ld CIT(A)-45, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.14.96 lakhs as unexplained deposits made into the bank account.

The facts relating to the issue are discussed in brief. The AO noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.14.96 lakhs in her savings bank account and accordingly asked the assessee to explain the sources thereof. The assessee explained the sources as under:- (a) Sale value of jewellery - 4,28,000 (b) Withdrawal of cash from bank - 1,00,000

Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that she had sold a residential flat for Rs.37.00 lakhs and purchased another flat for Rs.49.65 lakhs. In order to meet the cost of new flat, she has sold jewellery for Rs.4,00,000/-, whixh was deposited into her bank account. In support of the same, the assessee submitted that she has taken the sale consideration of flat as Rs.41.00 lakhs (Rs.37.00 (+) Rs.4.00 lakhs) and accordingly computed capital gains. The assessee further submitted that she had withdrawn Rs.1.00 lakhs earlier from her bank account and the same was re-deposited. She also submitted that there are cash withdrawals from the bank accounts of her husband and son. She also claimed to have received gift of Rs.45,000/-. Accordingly she submitted that the cash deposit to the tune of Rs.6,75,600/- stand explained. The Ld CIT(A) was not convinced with her explanations. Since the assessee had declared sale consideration of flat as Rs.41.00 lakhs against the column “sale value of land or building or both”, the Ld CIT(A) did not accept the contention that the same includes sale value of jewellery. Regarding the remaining claims, the Ld CIT(A) did not accept them in the absence of evidences. Accordingly he confirmed the addition made by the AO.

The ld A.R furnished a copy of sale agreement of flat to buttress his contention that the sale of flat was only Rs.37.00 lakhs and hence the remaining amount of sale consideration of Rs.4.00 lakhs relate to sale of jewellery. With regard to the remaining claims, he placed his reliance on the bank statements.

On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has made only oral submissions without bringing any material on record.

I have heard rival contentions and perused the record. A perusal of sale agreement relating to sale of flat, I notice that the sale value has been mentioned therein as Rs.37.00 lakhs only. In the return of income, the assessee has, however, declared sale consideration as Rs.41.00 lakhs. Though the assessee has not stated that the remaining amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs represent sale value of jewellery in the return of income, yet the fact remains that the assessee has declared excess amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs for capital gains purposes and claimed deduction u/s 54F against the same. It is an admitted fact that the assessee could not furnish any evidence to substantiate her claim of sale of jewellery. However, it is quite common to generate funds by selling jewellery, when huge investments in purchase of flat is made. Hence, considering the human probabilities, I am of the view that the assessee may be given credit of Rs.4.00 lakhs, being sale value of jewellery, against the bank deposits. However, I notice that the assessee appears to have not furnished the copy of sale agreement before the AO. Hence for the limited purpose of verifying the sale agreement for the purpose of establishing that the sale consideration for sale of flat was only Rs.37.00 lakhs, I restore this issue to the file of the AO. The assessing officer, after examining the sale agreement and after satisfying himself that the assessee has declared excess amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs as the sale consideration, may allow credit of Rs.4.00 lakhs as discussed above.

With regard to claim of re-deposit of money withdrawn earlier, withdrawals made from the bank accounts of husband & son, receipt of gifts etc., the assessee could not furnish any evidence to substantiate the said claims. Since the withdrawals are of small amount, the possibility of accumulating them and re-depositing them is remote and also against human probabilities. Accordingly, I am of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in rejecting them.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed.