Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
Assessee through this appeal assails additions of �2,78,346/- and �5,87,347/- claimed to have been received from his mother and father-in-law respectively.
Assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of thirteen days. 2.
Condonation petition has been filed. Reason shown for the delay seems to be justified. Ld. Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection. Delay is condoned. Appeal is admitted.
ITA No.442/Mds/2017 :- 2 -:
Facts apropos are that assessee earning brokerage and photography income had filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing income of �4,90,230/-. Ld. Assessing Officer was having annual information report which evidenced cash deposits of �60,25,000/- made by the assessee on various dates in his bank accounts. Sources for the deposits were sought. Reply of the assessee was analyzed by the ld. Assessing Officer. According to him, following borrowings claimed by the assessee could not be believed.
Name of the loan Relationship Amount given Mode of creditor with assessee during the year payment Smt. A. Shakira Banu Wife 9,55,515 Cash Shri. Mumtaz Mother 2,78,346 Cash Shri. (late) Saji Father-in-law 5,87,347 Cash Ld. Assessing Officer did make a enquiry on each of the above three creditors. Smt. A. Shakira Banu had stated that money was given by her from dowry received from her parents and her savings from the tailoring business. Smt. Mumtaz, mother of the assessee stated that she had given the sum out of savings of her husband and also LIC maturities. However, as per ld. Assessing Officer, his Inspector had given an enquiry report inter alia stating that Smt. Mumtaz mother of the assessee was staying with her son and therefore her claim that money was kept by her for a period of twelve years could not be ITA No.442/Mds/2017 :- 3 -: believed. Further, as per ld. Assessing Officer Smt. A. Shakira Banu wife of the assessee was unable to produce any records regarding her tailoring business. Viz-a-viz claim of loan from his father in law Shri.
(late) Saji. Ld. Assessing Officer noted that late Shri. Saji was never assessed to tax and his bank account was never produced by the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer disbelieved the credits received from Smt. A. Shakira Banu, Smt. Mumtaz and Shri. (late) Saji and made an addition of �18,21,025/-.
Assessee’s appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was partly successful. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted claim of the assessee in so far as it concerned the claim of loan from Smt. A. Shakira Banu wife of the assessee.
However with respect to other two loans viz that from Smt. Mumtaz and Shri. (late) Saji, the additions were confirmed.
Now before me, ld. Authorised Representative strongly 5. assailing the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that Smt. Mumtaz, mother of the assessee had confirmed that she had given a loan of �2,78,346/- to the assessee and Inspector’s report clearly indicated such confirmation when she was orally questioned. Further as per ld. Authorised Representative in so far as loan of �5,87,347/- received from Shri. (late) Saji, father in law
ITA No.442/Mds/2017 :- 4 -: of the assessee was concerned, the factum of having received the loan stood established.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 6.
supported the orders of the authorities below.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the 7. orders of the authorities below. Assessee had produced confirmation from his mother Smt. Mumtaz and from his father in law Shri. (late)
Saji for the alleged loan of �2,78,346/- and �5,87,347/- claimed to have been received from them. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that assessee’s mother Smt. Mumtaz lived with the assessee all along. Revenue has also not disputed claim of the assessee that Smt. Mumtaz was not having any bank account for herself. Revenue doubted her version based on a surmise that she would not have kept the money with her for a long period of twelve years after the death of her husband in 1999. In my opinion, the confirmation from Smt.
Mumtaz being available on record and she having confirmed the factum of loan of �2,78,346/- to the assessee when confronted by the Inspector Shri. Santosh Kumar, the loan ought not have been disbelieved. However, so far as claim of loan of �5,87,347/- from father in law of the assessee is concerned, there is nothing on record to show why the person had kept the money in cash with him, and why it was given to the assessee. It was also mentioned by the ITA No.442/Mds/2017 :- 5 -:
Inspector Shri. Santhosh Kumar that residential address of the son of late Saji was not given by the assessee. Shri (late) Saji having expired on 14.10.2013, assessee was duty bound to produce sufficient corroborative evidence in support of his claim of loan from late Saji ,which he failed to do. Nothing was brought on record by the assessee to show the credit worthiness of Shri. (late) Saji. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that lower authorities were justified in making an addition of �5,87,347/- claimed to have received from Shri. (late) Saji. I delete the addition of �2,78,346/-, for the loan received by the assessee from his mother Smt.Mumtaz while confirm addition of �5,87,347/- being the claim of loan from father-in-law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.