9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceeds from agriculture produce which was further given to the assessee towards purchase of steel for construction of assessee’s house. In this situation, primary onus lies on the assessee as per requirement of section 69 of the Act and has been discharged by the assessee. In this situation, the onus was shifted on the AO to show that the explanation submitted by the assessee was not sustainable and the father of the assessee Shri Adisal had not earned any agricultural income from agricultural land owned by him. Finally, we reach to a conclusion that the assessee properly explained source of investment of ₹ 2,80,000 which was incurred by him towards purchase of steel towards construction of his house, therefore, no addition u/s 69 of the Act is called for. See CIT vs Lal Transport Corporation (2008 (7) TMI 957 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA). - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.2678/Del/2013, I.T.A.No.2762/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2015 - SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR For The Respondent : Shri K.P. Guglani, Advocate ORDER PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. These cross appeals by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant s income from undisclosed sources under section 69 of Income Tax, Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (Appeals) Faridabad, was not justified in rejecting the affidavit of Shree Adisal, father of the appellant without examining him. 7. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. Ld. counsel of the assessee pointed out that the assessee vide reply dated 6.12.2010 submitted before the AO that the impugned sum of ₹ 2,80,000 was deposited by his father Shri Adisal in his Savings Bank account for purchase of steel for construction of his residential house. Ld. Counsel vehemently contended that in this regard, the assessee filed affidavit of Shri Adisal dated 3.12.2010 before the AO along with copies of the revenue patwari record for the year 2005-06 which clearly shows that the father of the assessee Shri Adisal was owning agricultural land jointly with other coowners and he was deriving income from agriculture only out of his share of land measuring about 8 acres situated at Village Khatoli, Sultanpur, District Mahendargarh. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. DR fairly accepted that the assessee submitted affidavit of his father Shri Adisal along with copies of the revenue patwari records for AY 2005-06 which shows that the father of the assessee was owning agriculture land jointly with Shri Total Ram Prabhati Lal and his agriculture income was exempted from tax. However, ld. DR pointed out that there is no evidence to show that the father of assessee Shri Adisal actually earned agricultural income by doing farming on the said land, therefore, the version mentioned in the affidavit of Shri Adisal cannot be held as sacrosanct and thus, it cannot be presumed that the assessee had discharged the onus levied on him as per relevant provisions of the Act. Ld. DR strongly supporting the action of the authorities below further submitted that as per facts noted by the AO, the assessee made unexplained investment of ₹ 2,80,000 in the construction of house, therefore, the same was rightly added to the returned income of the assessee as per provisions of section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Ld. DR also submitted that mere non-mentioning of section in the assessment order and mentioning of two provisions in the appellate order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- deposited in the appellant s Bank account is appellant s income from undisclosed sources. 12. In view of above, it is amply clear that the CIT(A) has mainly relied on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs K. Chinnathambam (supra) wherein reversing the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court, it was held that the onus of proving the source of deposits primarily rested on the person in whose name the deposits appeared in the various banks and there was no evidence to show that members of the public had been placing their deposits with the firm through their relatives and friends and there was no link up of all those amounts with the books of the firm. Finally, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the assessee was not able to explain the source of money, thus, the department was right in making an individual assessment in the name of the assessee. When we carefully peruse the dicta laid down by apex court in this case, it is amply clear that the case is related to the issue of addition of section 69A of the Act in regard to unexplained money etc. wherein it has been held that the onus of proving the source of deposits primarily rested on the person in whose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07-08. In this situation, we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the authorities below that there has been no evidence given by the assessee to substantiate that he (Shri Adisal) received proceeds from agriculture produce which was further given to the assessee towards purchase of steel for construction of assessee s house. In this situation, primary onus lies on the assessee as per requirement of section 69 of the Act and has been discharged by the assessee. In this situation, the onus was shifted on the AO to show that the explanation submitted by the assessee was not sustainable and the father of the assessee Shri Adisal had not earned any agricultural income from agricultural land owned by him. Finally, we reach to a conclusion that the assessee properly explained source of investment of ₹ 2,80,000 which was incurred by him towards purchase of steel towards construction of his house, therefore, no addition u/s 69 of the Act is called for. Our conclusion also finds support from the various judgments of Hon ble High Court including judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Lal Transport Corporation (2009) 180 Taxman 185 (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
