2017 (6) TMI 1377 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment u/s 69 - investment in an agricultural land - source of loan amount could not be explained - AO observed that the assessee had made investment in an agricultural land the source of investment was stated to be source of the source of loan taken to the other persons was claimed to have been taken from Smt. Anita Kumari was doubted by the AO - HELD THAT - AO made addition on the ground that the source of the source of loan amount could not be explained. CIT(A) in his order has observed that the AO in his remand report, reported that source of loan was stated to be cash withdrawal from the bank account of her husband. Moreover, the factum of sale of agricultural land by the Husband of Smt. Anita Kumari is not disputed by the Revenue. CIT(A) has adopted a possible view with regard to availability of fund from deposit in the banks accounts of Smt. Anita Kumari. AO did not bring any material on records suggesting that the cash belonged to the assessee. Hence, we see no merit into the ground of the revenue. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 43,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur, regarding the addition of Rs. 43,00,000 as unexplained investment by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2009-10. The AO had doubted a loan of Rs. 43 lakhs claimed to have been taken from Smt. Anita Kumari by the assessee for investment in agricultural land. The AO made the addition as unexplained investment, which was later deleted by Ld. CIT(A) after considering submissions and evidence provided by the assessee.

During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted various documents including bank account details, income tax returns, and affidavits from the lender and her husband explaining the source of the loan. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the submissions and evidence to rule in favor of the assessee, stating that the onus of proving the source of the loan was discharged by the assessee. The AO's contention that the creditworthiness of the lender was not proved was countered by the documents provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of Ld. CIT(A), noting that the AO failed to provide any material suggesting that the cash used for the investment belonged to the assessee. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds for appeal and dismissed the appeal, affirming the deletion of the addition of Rs. 43,00,000 as unexplained investment. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the lender in cases involving unexplained investments under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the need for assessing officers to thoroughly examine the evidence provided by taxpayers and ensure that the onus of proof is met before making additions based on unexplained investments. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of due diligence and proper documentation in tax assessments to prevent unwarranted additions based on inadequate scrutiny of facts and evidence.