Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPURBENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD
आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-II, Raipur, dated 07.07.2020, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 12.12.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,10,460/-, out of total addition of Rs.42,67,000/- made by the A.O on account of alleged unexplained investment in immovable property u/s.69. The addition made by the A.O and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified.
2. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the impugned property was purchased jointly by the appellant and his wife Smt. Kritika Chawla and he erred in confirming part of the addition made by the A.O entirely in the hands of the appellant.
3. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any ground or ground/s of appeal.”
Succinctly stated, on the basis of information received by the A.O that though the assessee during the year under consideration had purchased an immovable property valued at Rs.42.67 lacs but had not filed his return of income, proceedings u/s.147 of the Act were initiated in his case.
3 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai
As the assessee had failed to file his return of income in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2018, therefore, the A.O was constrained to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment, wherein after treating the entire investment as the assessee’s unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act, he vide his order passed u/ss. 144/147 of the Act, dated 12.12.2018, .
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Adverting to the merits of the addition so made in the hands of the assessee, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the assessee had a made total investment of Rs.45,12,860/-, which comprised of, viz. (i) cost of residential house: Rs.42.67 lacs; (ii) stamp duty : Rs.2,13,400/- and (iii) other miscellaneous expenses : Rs.32,460/-. On a perusal of the source of the aforementioned investment, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the same was made both by the assessee and his wife Smt. Kritika Chawla, as under:
Sl. Particular Amount No. 1. Out of loan raised by Rs.3202400/- the assessee from HDFC Bank 2. Out of savings of his Rs.1310460/- wife Smt. Kritika Chawla Total Rs.4512860/-
4 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai Although the CIT(Appeals) concurred with the claim of the assessee of having made an investment of Rs.32,02,400/- from his disclosed sources, but he was of the view that the investment to the extent claimed to have been made by his wife had remained unexplained. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee had failed to place on record any material to support his claim that investment of Rs.13,10,460/- (supra) was sourced out of the savings of his wife. On the contrary, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that not only Smt. Kritika Chawla (supra) was having any substantial financial means to justify the aforesaid investment, but in fact the source of the credit (including opening balance) in her bank account had remained unexplained. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations the CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition of Rs.13,10,460/- (supra) that was made by the A.O.
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me.
I have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial
5 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee had drawn my attention to a ‘chart’ wherein the bifurcated details of the investment of Rs.45,12,860/- towards purchase of the residential property in question were culled out, as under:
Particulars Amount Date of Source of Amount From Account Remarks payment payment No. (Rs.) (Rs.)
Details of cost Sources of finance Purchase 42,67,000 20-11- Savings of 4,26,700 11021140004882 Ch price Kritika with HDFC Bank No.0063083 2012 Chawla Savings of 11021140004882 Ch Stamp duty 2,13,400 28-12- 6,90,000 Kritika with HDFC Bank No.0063085 2012 Chawla Registration Savings of 11021140004882 Ch 32,460 08-01- 5,000 & Other Kritika with HDFC Bank No.0110404 Misc 2013 Chawla Charges 08-01- Savings of 42,670 11021140004882 Ch Kritika with HDFC Bank No.0110403 2013 Chawla 08-01- Savings of 1,31,850 11021140004882 Ch Kritika with HDFC Bank No.0110402 2013 Chawla 16-01- Savings of 14,240 Cash paid for Abhinav registration & 2013 Chawla other charges Total own 13,10,460 contribution Home loan 606876059 with 1st 30-01- 29,79,620 from HDFC HDFC Ltd. disbursement 2013 Ltd. Home loan 606876059 with 2nd 19-06- 85,340 from HDFC HDFC Ltd. disbursement 2013 Ltd.
6 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai
08-05- Home loan 1,37,440 606876059 with 3rd from HDFC HDFC Ltd. disbursement 2014 Ltd. Total of 32,02,400 Home loan Total 45,12,860 45,12,860 Adverting to the source of investment of Rs.13,10,460/- (supra) that was claimed to have been made by Smt. Kritika Chawla (supra), the Ld. AR had taken us through a chart placed at Page 37 of APB, which reads as under:
On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was claimed by the Ld. AR that now when the investment of Rs.13,10,460/- (supra) was clearly made by the assessee’s wife out of her savings bank account, therefore, there was no justification for the lower authorities to have dubbed the same as unexplained investment in the hands of her husband i.e the assessee before us.
7 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai
Having given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid claim of the Ld. AR, and perusing the material available on record, I find substance in the same. As stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, source of the investment aggregating to an amount of Rs.12,96,220/- [ Rs.13,10,460/- (-) Rs.14,240/-] is clearly made by assessee’s wife, viz. Smt. Kritika Chawla out of her savings bank account No.11021140004882 with HDFC Bank, Page 35 of APB. Now when the source of the aforesaid investment of Rs.13,10,460/- (supra) is clearly proved to the hilt to have been made by Smt. Kritika Chawla (supra), therefore, I find no justification in drawing any adverse inferences qua the said amount of investment in the hands of the present assessee. Although the assessee had came forth with an explanation as regards the source of the credits appearing in the bank account of his wife, viz. Smt. Kritika Chawla (supra), however, I am of the considered view that even if any of part of such credit remained unexplained, no adverse inferences qua the said amount still could have been drawn in the hands of the assessee.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that no adverse inferences insofar the amount of Rs.12,96,220/- is called for in the hands of the present assessee. At the same time, I am of the view that as the assessee had failed to substantiate on the 8 Abhinav Chawla Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai basis of irrefutable evidence the source of the cash that was claimed to have been paid for registration and other charges amounting to Rs.14,240/-, therefore, the A.O had rightly held the same as unexplained investment in his hands. On the basis of the aforesaid observations I scale down the addition made by the A.O to an amount of Rs.14,240/-.