Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-5, Chennai dated 04.08.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15.
The assessee has raised the following grounds for adjudication.
1. Contrary to facts, learned CIT (A) erred in deciding the appeal exparte and erred in stating that appellant did not attend the hearing on 2 dates.
2.1 Contrary to facts, A/C erred in adding Rs.25,00,000 u/s 69 towards unexplained investment in purchases of house property and CIT (A) erred in confirming the same.
2.2 Authorities below erred in not appreciating the fact that appellant obtained the above loan from Sri Mahendra Kumar, Propr: Aashana Enterprises, through three cheques on 3 dates, filed confirmation letter from the creditor with his PAN and repaid the loan in the subsequent year ie., Rs.5 lakhs on 4-6-2014 through cheque No.951954 and balance through 5 post dated cheques, all drawn on ING Vysya Bank and hence CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition.
2.3 Contrary to above facts, merely because the creditor did not respond to A/O’s query, authorities below erred in surmising that there was unexplained investment of Rs.25 lakhs in the purchase of house property.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee purchased flat at Sankeshwar Apartment at Poonamallee High Road, Vepary, Chennai-7 from the amount received from six persons. In this connection, communications were sent to the loan creditors for verification vide letter dated 11.11.2014 by ld. Assessing Officer. In response to the above said communication dated 11.11.2016 except Sri. Mahendra Kumar, Prop. Of M/s. Aashana Enterprises, No.5/lB Kesava Iyer Street Park Town, Chennai-600 003 all the other furnished the details called for. As there is no response from Sri.
Mahendrakumar, Prop. Of M/s. Aashna Enterprise, Chennai-3, a communication was sent to the assessee vide this office letter dated 08.12.2016 to produce the loan creditor before the A.O on 15.12.206 at 11.30 A.M. (duly served upon the assessee on 10.12.2016) but there is no response from the assessee. Whether a transaction of loan is genuine or not is always a question of fact and the primary onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction. Hence, from the above fact findings, it was observed by the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee was failed to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- invested in the said property was un-explained one and hence added into the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, 1961 by the A.O.
Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of ld. Assessing Officer. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, ld.A.R submitted that the assessee has filed a confirmation letter before the lower authorities, which was not considered. It is also submitted that the assessee has received the money through the bank account and the same was repaid subsequently through banking channel only.
4.1 On the other hand, ld.D.R relied on the order of lower authorities.
I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In my opinion, when the assessee placed necessary evidence in the form of confirmation letter, it is the duty of the ld. Assessing Officer to make further enquiry before framing the assessment. In the present case, the ld. Assessing Officer failed to make necessary enquiries, even though addresses of all the creditors and their PAN is available with the A.O. In the interest of justice, the entire issue in dispute is remitted to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh enquiry and decide thereupon in accordance with law.