2017 (2) TMI 405 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment - Held that - The assessee had clearly explained the source of ₹ 50 lakhs, from the loan taken by her, her spouse and her son. It was not brought on record any other utilisation for the loan taken by her and her family. Her son withdrew cash of ₹ 20 lakhs on July 21, 2008 and the same was utilised to pay on October 22, 2008. There is no other diversion or utilisation of ₹ 20 lakhs was brought on record. Considering the above discussion, in our view, the assessee has clearly explained the sources for the investment. The Revenue disputes on ₹ 12.50 lakhs payment for which there is clear evidence that her husband withdrew ₹ 5 lakhs and her son withdrew ₹ 7.50 lakhs from their respective bank account. Once the assessee demonstrates the sources clearly, there is no room for other views. There may be some delay in making the payment but the sources are clear, it has to be considered - Decided in favour of assessee Unexplained investment in house property - Held that - The assessee has shown that the amount of ₹ 13.40 lakhs was received from her son, which was taken as loan by her son from Reliance capital. The Assessing Officer in his remand report rejected this source based on the fact that her son has not indicated that this amount was given to her. The assessee and her family has not invested the amount taken on loan or at least it was not brought on record by the Assessing Officer that they utilised the amount taken on loan for making any other investment other than the investment of construction of house, we cannot deny the benefit of accepting their contention. The family has no other source to make the investment. Hence, we accept the submission of the assessee and accordingly ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Unexplained credits - Held that - From the record, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any other material to show that the assessee has other source of income. The assessee is earning only rental income. The assessee has claimed that she has income from agriculture also, we are not sure whether the same was declared in return of income, it was not placed on record. Even otherwise, as claimed, the assessee is not depended on the income to run the family. She is earning rental income of ₹ 26,000 per month. This itself is enough to make the above deposits in the bank. In the absence of any cogent material found by the Revenue, we give benefit of doubt in favour of the assessee and accordingly we delete the addition.- Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Unexplained investment in the purchase of land.
2. Unexplained investment in house property.
3. Unexplained credits in the bank account.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Unexplained Investment in Purchase of Land

The assessee entered into an agreement to purchase land at Kondapur, paying ?50 lakhs. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted sources for ?37.50 lakhs but treated ?12.50 lakhs as unexplained due to inconsistencies in the assessee's explanations. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this view, noting gaps in the cash flow statement and the lack of evidence for the source of the ?12.50 lakhs.

The assessee argued that the amount came from loans taken by her family members and provided evidence of withdrawals from their bank accounts. The Tribunal found that the assessee had clearly explained the sources of the investment, noting that the family had no other source of income and the loans were not used elsewhere. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the sources were adequately demonstrated.

Issue 2: Unexplained Investment in House Property

The assessee claimed to have invested ?19 lakhs in constructing a house, explaining the sources as loans from her son and brother. The AO questioned the sources due to mismatched dates and inconsistencies in the assessee's statements, treating the investment as unexplained. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed this, citing a lack of evidence that the loan amounts were used for construction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shown that ?13.40 lakhs came from her son's loan from Reliance Capital and other withdrawals from bank accounts. The Tribunal accepted the explanation, stating that there was no evidence of other investments by the family and allowed the appeal.

Issue 3: Unexplained Credits in the Bank Account

The AO added ?3,13,710 as unexplained credits, rejecting the assessee's explanation of past savings and agricultural income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this, noting the lack of specific evidence for the credits.

The assessee argued that the credits were from her daughter's ICICI Bank account, her husband's withdrawals, and rental income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient rental income to justify the deposits and no evidence of other income sources was brought by the Revenue. The Tribunal deleted the addition, giving the benefit of the doubt to the assessee.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessee had adequately explained the sources for the investments and credits in question. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence rather than suspicion to justify additions to income.

← Previous Next →