Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee acquired an immovable property for Rs. 16,75,975/-. The AO made an addition for unexplained sources, which the CIT(A) partially deleted (Rs. 10 lakh HDFC loan and Rs. 75,975/- salary savings) but sustained Rs. 6,00,000/-, citing unsubstantiated cash withdrawals. The assessee, working abroad, also had her appeal for condonation of delay accepted by the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the sustained addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- represented payments made to the property promoter via bank transfers from the assessee's savings account in earlier years, not the assessment year in question. The Ld DR concurred with the assessee's explanation and supporting documents, leading to the deletion of the addition.
Key Issues
Whether the addition for unexplained investment in property was justified when payments were made through bank transfers in earlier years.
Sections Cited
250(6), 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the order of the Ld CIT ( A), NFAC , Delhi, passed u/s 250(6) of the Act 61 , dated 28/03/2024, which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, dated 18/03/2022, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act 61. belatedly by 117 ( One Hundred Seventeen days ). An application for condonation of delay has been filed explaining the fact that the assessee is a school teacher, employed abroad and she was not aware of the passing of the appellate order dated 28/03/2024, by the first appellate authority. She filed copies of relevant pages of her passport to submit that she returned to India on the 13th of July, 2024, and after gathering information from local office, regarding her appeal matter, she contacted her counsel and after gathering necessary papers, she filed this appeal belated by 117 days , on 21st September, 2024. She prayed, that since she was out of the country during that period of time she was unaware about the developments and the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and prayed for condonation and for admission of the appeal to be heard on merits. The Ld DR has no objection . Taking into account the factual aspect of the matter and in absence of any wilful neglect on the part of the assessee, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.
Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has purchased an immovable property during the year under appeal for an amount of Rs. 16,75,975/- , the source of which was enquired into by the AO in scrutiny proceedings. In absence of any explanations from the assessee, ( being employed as a teacher and residing
The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld CIT ( A ) /NFAC , and on the basis of submissions and documentary evidences filed , in course of appellate proceedings, relief was allowed by the Ld first appellate authority, by deleting an addition of Rs. 10 lakhs ( tenlakhs )being HDFC housing loan financed for acquiring the immovable property, plus an amount of Rs. 75,975/- being out of salary savings, was accepted and allowed , but the balance addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- was sustained by the Ld CIT (A) on the ground that cash withdrawn by assessee from bank during the months of November, 2011, July, 2012 and January and February, 2013, cannot be believed to have been kept reserved for so many months for making payments to the promoter builder , and as such the said addition of Rs.6,00,000/- was sustained.
Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal challenging the balance remaining addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- ( Rs. Six Lakhs ), and in course of hearing the Ld AR of the assesseehas drawn our attention to the bank statement with Jammu and Kashmir Bank A/c No : XXXXXXX 15847 to point out that the said amount of Rs. Six lakhshas been paid in five separate installments dated 19th November, 2011 Rs.1,00,000/- , 29th November, 2011 Rs. 1,85,000/-, 19th July, 12 Rs. 1,15,000/- , 8th Jan, 2013, Rs. 1,00,000/- and 8th Feb 13, Rs. 1,00,000/- ( totaling Rs. Six lakhs ) , all the promoter builder M/s Riddhi Siddhi Infra Projects Pvt Ltd ( Jammu ),( who has also furnished a copy of the ledger account of the assessee in their books ) , which reflects the matching dates and amount.
The Ld AR also submits that that it is not a case of cash withdrawal from bank and preserving the same for payments at later date, but it is direct bank transfer to the credit of the promoter bank account in instalments on various dates (for flat purchase) which are all paid out of the assessee savings bank account , and in any case the payment of Rs. Six lakhs has been made in earlier years through bank channel , which is not the year under appeal.
The Ld DR agrees to the submission of the assessee and after examining the bank transactions as reflected in the bank statements, is fair enough to accept the contention of the assessee.
As such considering the above factual aspect of the matter, we find that the source of investment of Rs. 6,00,000/- ( Rs. Six Lakhs), is duly explained to have come out of bank account of the assessee in instalments paid through bank channel, in earlier years and as such the said addition is hereby deleted.
Order pronounced in open court as on 29.05.2025.