2018 (2) TMI 2033 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of on money payment as unexplained investment u/s 69 - CIT- A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - We find that the CIT(A) has accepted the contentions of the assessee for giving relief to the assessee. We find that the assessee has filed the cash flow statement of Smt. Sulochanamma and the details of the cash gifts to the assessee and the cash for this purpose is drawn from her UTI, now Axis bank account. We find that the copies of the bank statements of UTI, now Axis bank are filed to demonstrate that the cash gifts were given by Smt. Sulochanamma to the assessee. We also find that initially, the assessee had claimed that the cash gifts are from Canara Bank, but before the CIT(A), it was submitted that it was from Axis Bank. Smt. Sulochanamma is proved to be a person with means, and the claim that she has gifted the money to the assessee has been proved. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). - Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Assessment of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act based on cash payments for property purchase.
2. Justification of cash gifts received from mother-in-law as the source of funds for excess payment.
3. Acceptance of assessee's explanation by the CIT(A) and subsequent appeal by the Revenue.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of unexplained investment under section 69
The case involved the Revenue's appeal for the A.Y 2009-10 regarding the assessee's purchase of a villa plot. The Assessing Officer (A.O) contended that the assessee made unexplained cash payments over the official price, leading to an assessment under section 69 of the Act. The A.O questioned the source of cash payments, which the assessee attributed to cash gifts received from her mother-in-law. The A.O rejected this explanation, considering it an afterthought to evade tax, and brought the amount to tax.

Issue 2: Justification of cash gifts from mother-in-law
The assessee, in response, appealed to the CIT(A) with evidence of cash gifts received from her mother-in-law to explain the excess payment. The CIT(A) called for a remand report and, after review, accepted the explanation, stating that the mother-in-law had sufficient funds to gift the amount. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation satisfactory, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

Issue 3: Acceptance of assessee's explanation and Revenue's appeal
The Revenue, aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s decision, appealed before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and evidence presented. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly accepted the assessee's contentions, supported by the cash flow statement and bank statements of the mother-in-law. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating sources of funds in property transactions and the need for thorough documentation to support claims. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the significance of evidence and the burden of proof in tax assessments, ultimately upholding the CIT(A)'s acceptance of the assessee's explanation based on the provided documentation and evidence.