Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee invested Rs. 27,50,000/- in immovable property, and the Assessing Officer reopened the case to verify the source of funds. The assessee provided loan confirmations, lenders' ITRs, and bank statements from six parties to explain the investment.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of investment through loans and provided evidence of repayment and lender details. The lower authorities rejected these without valid reasons, thus the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessing Officer erred in re-opening the assessment without properly considering the evidence of loan sources provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT SMC BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 13-05-2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2010-11.
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.