9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri A. Sundar Rajan, Jt. CIT(DR) ORDER PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 30.11.2011 of the CIT(Appeals)-I, Bangalore relating to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:- "1.1 The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) I, Bangalore, to the extent prejudicial to the appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) I, Bangalore has erred in solely relying on the information contained in Annual information return (AIR) in the process of sustaining the additions to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... salaries. For the assessment year 2008-09, she filed a return of income declaring total income of Q 4,66,360. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO confronted the assessee with the copies of Annual Information Report (AIR) in respect of specified financial transactions which were required to be submitted by specified persons mentioned in section 285BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 r.w. rule 114E of the I.T. Rules, 1962. As per the AIR obtained by the Assessing Officer, the assessee made investments to the extent of Q 25 lakhs. The details of investment made by the assessee as revealed by the AIR were as follows:- Birla Sunlife Mutual Fund 5,50,000 Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund 7,00,000 Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund 5,50,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AIR shows some investment and the assessee denies it, no addition can be made on account of unexplained investments without further evidence to show that the assessee made investments. The assessee also submitted that the information contained in the AIR is a guideline for the Officer based on which the Officer can initiate enquiries and that under no circumstances can AIR be considered as absolute document to conclude the assessment. 8. On the above submissions by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) held as follows:- "8. I completely agree with the above inference of the AR quoted in Para 7. In fact by denying so the assessee shifted the burden to the A.O. I observe the A.O. had been given sufficient time i.e., from 23rd March 2010 to 25-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs The above shows that Sl.No. (iv) does not pertain to this A.Y. 2007-08. Hence the addition is restricted to ₹ 21 lakhs. Appellant gets relief of ₹ 5 lakhs." 9. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals) in sustaining the addition to the extent of Q 21 lakhs, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10. We have heard the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assesse who reiterated stand of the Assessee as put forth before CIT(A) besides relying on some judicial precedents. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals). 11. We have considered the rival submissions. The AIR obtained by the AO from the specified person is at pages 50-51 of the paperbook. The disputed additions in this app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances the AIR will not be accepted, one of the answers given by the department is that mismatch of name of filer mentioned in Form 68A with AIR file but no document submitted in support of name appearing on Form 61A (Part A). Further, the press release dated 26.10.2006 brings out the CBDT Guidelines for dealing with the grievances arising out of cases selected for scrutiny on the basis of information contained in AIR. The guidelines mentions that when a grievance is projected by a tax payer with regard to AIR, steps should be taken to redress such written grievances expeditiously. 14. As already stated, the Bangalore Bench of ITAT in the case of G. Selvakumar (supra) has already taken the view that assessment order based only on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the assessee that as per SEBI Guidelines issued on 30.09.2002 to Mutual Funds (copy placed at page 31 of the compilation filed by the assessee), mutual funds are debarred from accepting cash applications for investment in funds. On 13.09.2012, the SEBI has issued a Circular in which it has carved out an exception to the above rule by permitting cash transactions in mutual funds per investor per mutual fund per financial year at ₹ 20,000/-. The above being the applicable regulation, there is every reason to doubt the veracity of the AIR, based on which the revenue authorities have made the impugned addition. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned addition made by the AO and sustained by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
