9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether a sum of Rs. 3,69,000/- claimed to be gifts received from daughter by the assessee could be added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case . 3.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the Learned AO observed that the sums of Rs. 3,25,000/- and Rs. 44,000/- were found credited in the assessee's bank statement maintained with Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank. When enquired about the sources for the same, the assessee explained that the said amounts were received as gifts from the eledest daughter Mrs.Fariah Rahaman, who is a resident of Manchester, United Kingdom and is employed there. It was explained that funds were remitted from U.K. in pounds to the credit of her SB Account (SB A/c NO. 259) maintained with the same bank as assessee's ie Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank and from there, vide two cheques drawn in assessee's name, the gifts amounts of Rs. 3,25,000/- and Rs. 44,000/- were transferred to assessee's bank account. The assessee also produced the bank statements of the donor (i.e Mrs. Fariah Rahaman) together with an affidavit from her stating the factum of gif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy residing in Kashmir, who was in death bed, sold her property and distributed the sale consideration including the advance received thereon to her daughters and sons. Accordingly, the share pertaining to her daughter (assessee's wife ) was gifted who in turn gave it as loan to the assessee. The wife of the assessee also filed confirmation for having given the loan and also appeared before the Learned AO and confirmed the same fact. The Learned AO however added the said credit of Rs. 5,70,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. On first appeal, the Learned CITA appreciated the factual contentions of the assessee and deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- "2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as in law in deleting Rs. 5,70,000/- on the claim of the assessee that these are sale proceeds gifted to his wife by his mother-in-law. " 4.2. The Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO. 4.3. We have heard the Learned DR. We find from the records that the assessee has received Rs. 5,70,000/- as loan from his wife Mrs. Chasfida Rahman. The assessee also explained that his wife had received gift from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded all the credits in the bank account maintained with Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank account of the assessee. Having said so, he ought not to have held that the said bank account is not disclosed by the assessee for the purpose of making this addition of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Even otherwise, the various credits that were otherwise added as income in previous grounds itself, would act as a source for making this fund transfer to HSBC account . Ultimately, it is only a question of fund transfer from one bank account (i.e Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank) to HSBC Bank account. There is no question of any element of income involved therein. The source is explained by the Learned AO himself and hence it does not become unexplained. Hence the provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case. In these circumstances, we find that the Learned CITA had rightly deleted the said addition and we find no infirmity in his order in this regard. Accordingly, the ground no.3 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 6. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether a sum of Rs. 6,89,410/- could be added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation was not found satisfactory by the Learned AO who brought the investment in mutual funds to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- to tax as unexplained investment. On first appeal, the Learned CITA appreciated the contentions of the assessee and held that the assessee has duly explained the source for making investments in mutual funds and deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as in law in deleting Rs. 9,00,000/- although the assessee could not prove the purchase of Mutual Fund units is made out of disclosed/taxed income. 7.2. The Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO. 7.3. We have heard the Learned DR. It is not in dispute that the cheques for purchase of two mutual funds were issued from HSBC bank account of the assessee. The immediate source of credit for issuing these cheques was explained to be funds transferred from Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000/- and remaining Rs. 5,50,000/- received from his wife. We find that the Learned AO had already given a finding that Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank account is maintained by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
