DEEPAKKUMAR NANDLAL RAJYAGURU,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

The assessee made investment of Rs. 27,50,000/- i.e. ½ of Rs. 55,00,000/- in immoveable property. The Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee on the basis of explaining the source of purchase of immoveable property.

We find that the assessee explained the source of investment in immovable property through loan from 6 parties. The assessee has given the details of confirmation, lender’s ITR as well as bank statements before the revenue authorities. At the Deepakkuamr Nandlal Rajyaguru Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2010-11 - 2– time of hearing the Ld. AR pointed out that the assessee has made repayment of loan to three parties that are, Madhukanta Rajyaguru, Bhavnaben Rajyaguru, Nareshbhai Rajyaguru in Financial Year 2016-17. The evidence to that extent was reproduced before us. To establish the identity of the lenders the assessee has given all the details but the same was rejected by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer without giving any reasons. Thus, the assessee has proved the source of the investment before the revenue authorities which was not considered by the Assessing Officer at the time of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the addition does not sustain.