SOMAVARAPU SHOBA RANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , NALGONDA

Assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A) and pleaded that she does not have one fourth share in the property purchased, but she along with her husband son and daughter-in-law possessed only 5%, 5%, 2.5% and 2.5% each respec�vely totaling to only 15% thereof. She further pleaded that they have obtained bank loan to the tune of Rs. 65 Lacs, there was a withdrawal of Rs. 20 Lacs from ICICI bank on 20/5/2019, a sum of Rs. 30 Lacs from Kotak bank by one Mr. Anup Kumar on 11/1/2019, whereas Rs. 39 Lacs were paid to the wife of the builder by name Smt. Usharani on various dates.

Learned CIT(A) directed the learned Assessing Officer to verify the percentage of shares held by the assessee and her family. Learned CIT(A) further directed learned Assessing Officer to verify the payments made to Smt. Usharani and to accept such payments if those were made by way of cheque. Learned CIT(A) accepted the bank loan of Rs. 65 Lacs. Learned CIT(A), however, did not accept the withdrawals of Rs. 20 Lacs and 30 lakhs from ICICI bank and Kotak bank on the ground that the withdrawals are not in proximity to payment. Learned CIT(A) accordingly allowed the appeal in part.

Assessee is therefore aggrieved and filed this appeal sta�ng that the payments were made to Smt. Usharani only through HDFC bank account and therefore, the same should have been accepted by the Learned CIT(A). So also, according to the learned AR when the withdrawals were made from the ICICI bank and Kotak bank, there was no reason for the learned CIT(A) not to accept the same. According to the learned AR such withdrawn amounts were kept with the family members of the assessee because by the �me itself they were searching for purchase of a suitable property and as and when the suitable property was found out, such amount was u�lised for purchase of the same.

Per contra, Learned DR strongly supported the impugned order and stated that both the authori�es accepted the bank loan. Apart from that the Learned CIT(A) did not reject the conten�on of the assessee as to the share held by the family of the assessee in the property purchased, but only directed verifica�on of the same and it will not cause any prejudice to the case of the assessee. Further, if the en�re amount of Rs. 39 Lacs was paid to Smt. Usharani through banking channels of HDFC bank, on verifica�on of the same as directed by the Learned CIT(A), the same will be allowed by the learned Assessing Officer. Lastly, in respect of the withdrawals and u�lisa�on of the amount, learned DR submi�ed that it is not something usual for the prospec�ve purchasers to keep huge amounts of Rs. 50 Lacs in cash in their houses running the risk of it being stolen, and such a conduct of the family members of the assessee runs contrary to the ordinary course of human conduct.

I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. I do not find any reason to interfere with the direc�on of the learned CIT(A) given to the learned Assessing Officer to verify the percentage of share held by the family members of the assessee and the assessee in par�cular in the property purchased or the mode in which the payments were made to Smt. Usharani, because such a course does not cause any prejudice to the case of the assessee. If really the percentage of share held by the assessee is only 5% in the property purchased and all the money paid to Smt. Usharani was to HDFC bank, the same will be allowed by the learned Assessing Officer.

Coming to the observa�ons of the Learned CIT(A) that for want of proximity of �me between the withdrawal and payment, the source for the payment of sum of Rs. 50 lakhs cannot be believed, when the statement of account with the bank shows such withdrawals, such withdrawals cannot be disbelieved. Whether the family members of the assessee kept the same in cash with them or kept somewhere or with someone else has not come out on record. Learned CIT(A) reached a conclusion as to the proximity of �me, perhaps, on the presump�on that the assessee pleaded that such an amount was kept in cash in the house of the assessee. We do not know the actual mode of keeping such amount with the family members of the assessee or someone else.

Further, through a catena of decisions the judicial of opinion is that no addi�on could be made on the sole reason that there is a �me gap between the date of withdrawal from bank account and redeposit the same into the bank, unless the learned Assessing Officer demonstrates that the amount in ques�on was used by the assessee for any other purpose. Gordhan vs ITO in and ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) are to cite a few. Spending or otherwise of the withdrawn amount is only a ma�er of suspicion and again by the authori�es. No