9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome from which cash could have been deposited by her in her bank account. Therefore, making the assumption that such a large sum has been deposited from the unexplained sources cannot be accepted whereas the assessee has submitted proper and reasoned explanation. In the circumstances and facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the substantial part of deposit as income from unexplained investments in the hands of the assessee which is directed to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - I. T. A. No. 306/Coch/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2016 - B. P. Jain (Accountant Member) and George George K. (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : R. Sreenivasan, Chartered Accountant For the Respondent : K. P. Gopakumar, Senior Departmental representative ORDER B. P. Jain (Accountant Member) 1. This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kottayam, dated March 6, 2015, for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The officers below were not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 67,38,500 credited in the bank account as not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 91,50,000 5. The assessee was asked to explain the source for these deposits and to produce evidence, if any, regarding the said deposits in the HDFC Bank, Changanacherry, vide this office letter dated March 8, 2013. 6. The assessee filed a reply on March 12, 2013, and explained that the source of credit is from sale of property in the name of her husband, Sri C. P. Gopakumar. The sale of the property was on December 21, 2009. The sale deed and purchase deed of the property were produced and these were verified. 7. On verification of the sale deed and Form 1(B) rule 3(1A) attached along with the sale deed, it is seen that the property exclusively belonged to Sri C. P. Gopakumar and that the total value of property as per the sale deed is ₹ 21,20,000 only. 8. As per the assessee's explanation dated March 12, 2013, in addi tion to the said sum of ₹ 21,20,000 a sum of ₹ 49,80,000 was received as additional amount on sale of the said property. Thus, the actual value of the property on sale comes to ₹ 71,00,000 as per the assessee's own explanation and the source of cash credits are explai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rental income of ₹ 2,91,500 totalling to ₹ 24,11,500 and sustained the addition of ₹ 67,38,500. 5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that out of ₹ 91,50,000 credited, ₹ 71,00,000 belonged on account of sale proceeds including the premium received from the sale of her husband, Shri C. P. Gopakumar's property. Even though the sale proceeds mentioned in the sale deed is ₹ 21,20,000, balance of ₹ 49,80,000 was received as additional amount on the sale of the said property and the sources of the said deposit of ₹ 91,50,000 have already been explained which are reproduced in the Assessing Officer's order hereinabove. 6. It was argued that the assessee's husband was a non-resident Indian for over 30 years and was not having non-resident ordinary account in any bank in India but he was having only non-resident external account in India. As per the Reserve Bank of India/Foreign Exchange Management Rules, it is not possible to give credit for Indian rupees in such an account. Accordingly, the assessee's husband received the sale proceeds for convenient purposes and deposited the same in his wife ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Act is baseless. 3. The appellant's husband, C. P. Gopakumar, is a non-resident Indian for over 30 years and he never had a non-resident ordinary (NRI) account in any banks in India. He is maintaining only NRE (non-resident external account) in India. As per the Reserve Bank of India/Foreign Exchange Management Rules it is not possible to give credit for Indian rupee in non-resident external account. Since the sale proceeds were received in Indian rupees for convenient sake he has deposited in his wife's (appellant) bank account and he had no other intention. 4. Since C. P. Gopakumar, husband of the appellant, is a non- resident Indian over 30 years' and he was not aware of Indian laws and rules. He hardly comes to India one or two times in a year. He did not even have a permanent account number. Now, that he has applied for permanent account number and will be filing the income- tax return with respect to capital gains for the property sold in India. Hence, taxing same amount twice is highly inappropriate, harsh and bad in law. 5. The statement by the Assessing Officer that (clause 10 of the order) C. P. Gopakumar has never confirmed the so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000 3-10-2009 2,00,000 13-1-2009 2,00,000 28-11-2009 25,000 3-12-2009 5,000 7-12-2009 20,000 23-2-2009 1,55,000 Total cash withdrawals 19,20,000 Hence, bank credit of ₹ 91,50,000 is reconciled as under : (Rs.) Proceeds from sale of property 71,00,000 Cash withdrawals from bank redeposited 19,20,000 Income from rental income 13,00,000 Gross income returned is ₹ 2,91,500 Total 91,50,000 7) The appellant has not been afforded an opportunity to cross- examine the purchaser. The Assessing Officer has merely accepted his version. This is unjustifiable. 8) More points will be raised at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
