EDWARD P. NADAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(1)(4), MUMBAI

The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-10 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-40 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-40 / ITO23(1)(4) / 11 / 2012-13 dated 30/12/2014 qua confirmation of certain addition u/s 69C ITA.No.1204/Mum/2015 Edward P. Nadar Assessment Year-2009-10 for Rs.9.95 Lacs. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer 23(1)(4), Mumbai [AO] u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28/12/2011.

Pursuant to receipt of certain AIR information, it was noted that the assessee purchased a property for Rs.50,90,350/-. Since the assessee could not file any explanation / details against the said investment, the same resulted into an assessment u/s 144 where the impugned investment was added to the income of the assessee u/s 69.

Aggrieved, the assessee contested the matter with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 30/12/2014 where the assessee submitted the requisite details and explained the source of investment made by him. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the factual matrix, restricted the additions to Rs.9.95 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee [AR], while contesting the addition drew our attention to the fact that the impugned addition could not exceed Rs.6 Lacs since the assessee made payment to the builder partly out of cheques received by the assessee and partly out of cash deposited made by the assessee in the bank account. Per Contra, Ld. DR contended that the findings of Ld. CIT(A) was based on factual matrix and therefore, required no interference.

We have perused the contentions and material on record. We find that the assessee was required to explain the payment of Rs.16 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that the said payment is partly sourced out of cheques aggregating to Rs.7.50 Lacs. Out of the remaining balance, the assessee is able to prove the source to the extent of Rs.2.50 Lacs.