MAMATA DAS,KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-

Berhampur, dated 24.2.2014, for the assessment year 2009-2010.

confirming the addition of Rs.3 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer as

investments made by the assessee in the partnership firm M/s. Sunley

Jewellers, Koraput.

authorities and materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the

care are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has

contributed Rs.3 lakhs during the year under appeal towards her capital in

2 ITA No. 210/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 09- 201 0

the firm M/s. Sunley Jewllers, Koraput. The assessee during the course of

assessment proceedings, filed capital account for the last three assessment

years viz; 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-2010 for the year ended on

31.3.2007. The assessee had shown opening capital of Rs.1,92,468/-

which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it was

an afterthought as the assessee had not filed his return of income for

assessment year 2006-07 and, therefore, he did not accept the capital

investment of Rs.3 lakhs made by the assessee as capital contribution in

the partnership firm M/s. Sunely Jewellers, Koraput and made addition to

the income of the assessee as unexplained investment.

on the ground that the assessee did not produce corroborating evidence

such as copy of bank account or receipt of any money from sale of any

investments or property to support its contention that she had enough cash

with him to make the investment.

submitted that the issue covered in favour of the revenue and against the

assessee by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case other

partnership firm namely Bhagaban Nath in ITA No.205/CTK/2014 for the

assessment year 2009-2010 order dated 28.3.2017.

that the assessee had sales proceeds of house of Rs.21 lakhs and from that

the assessee could explain the investment to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs but

3 ITA No. 210/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 09- 201 0

could not explain the investment of Rs.1 lakh and, therefore, the addition

to the extent of Rs.1 lakh was sustained by the Tribunal. In the present

case also, I find that there is no such receipts from sale of house property

by the assessee to explain the investment of Rs.3 lakhs made in the

partnership firm towards capital contribution. Hence, I find no good and

justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby

confirmed and ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.