9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son for the purpose of construction from out of the loan obtained by him. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 3,13,710 appearing in the Central Bank of India, Kalyana Nagar Branch account of the assessee. 5. Having held that the earning of the assessee were sufficient only for the livelihood of the assessee, the lower authorities have unjustifiably made additions to the income returned without any iota of evidence that the assessee had any other source of income. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC) applies to the facts of the case. 4. Ground Nos. 1 and 5 are general in nature. 5. As regards ground No. 2 relating to the addition of ₹ 12,50,000, the assessee entered into an agreement for purchase of land at Kondapur and paid ₹ 50 lakhs towards her share. When questioned about the sources for payment of ₹ 50 lakhs, it was explained that the same was met out from her own sources, loan account of spouse and son on different dates through cash and cheques. Out of the total sources explained by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l proceedings, except mentioning to the lack of proper awareness in the matter on the part of the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any conclusive evidences for the sources of cash payment of ₹ 12.50 lakhs on October 22, 2008, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this count. 7. Before us, the learned authorised representative of the assessee referred to the letter dated October 10, 2011 filed by the assessee to the Assessing Officer wherein it was stated as under : On July 19, 2008, I have paid by cash ₹ 25,00,000 (rupees twenty five lakhs only) as advance which was drawn from my loan account No. (TLN- 573 ₹ 15 lakhs) (P 17 of P.S) and ₹ 10 lakhs (P 22 of P.S) from my husband V. Venkateswara Rao loan account No. (TLN 569 ₹ 15 lakhs) (P 22 of P.S) and subsequently paid ₹ 12.50 lakhs on August 9, 2008 by way of cheque No. 560712 (P 17 of paper book) drawn on Adarsh Bank SB A/c. No. 19641 and finally paid ₹ 12.50 lakhs on October 22, 2008 from the amount received from my son V. Srinivas Pradeep loan account No. TLN 574 which was drawn on July 21, 2008 (Rs. 20 lakhs) (pag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) that Mere suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence . Similar observations have been made by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC). The hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal held in the case of Asst. CIT v. Baldev Raj Charla [2009] 121 TTJ (Delhi) 366 as follows : There is no finding recorded by the learned Assessing Officer or by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that apart from depositing these cash into bank as explained by the assessee, there was any other user by the assessee of these amounts and in the absence of that, simply because there was a time gap, the explanation of the assessee cannot be rejected and hence the addition confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not correct. We, therefore, delete the same. This ground of the assessee is allowed . 8. The learned Departmental representative, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities. 9. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. The facts are that the assessee is deriving inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en remanded the same to the Assessing Officer, in the remand report, the Assessing Officer brought out that the assessee is changing her version whenever a lapse was pointed in the earlier version and that the cash flow statement filed after conclusion of the assessment proceedings is an afterthought to fill in the gaps pointed out in the assessment and that such cash flow statement without any supporting evidences cannot be considered. 11.1 Against the above comments of the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that the amount of ₹ 19 lakhs was met out of loans obtained by her son Sri V. S. Pradeep from M/s. Reliance Capital on November 12, 2008, which was withdrawn from Axis Bank on November 17, 2008. 11.2 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that from the material furnished by the assessee, Sri V. S. Pradeep obtained a loan of ₹ 13.70 lakhs and has withdrawn ₹ 13.54 lakhs on November 17, 2008. There is no iota of evidence that the said amount was given to his mother and the same was invested in construction. Apart from this figure of ₹ 13.54 lakhs, there is no mention about the sources of the balance amount invested in construction. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He contended that the assessee's explanation has been rejected only on the ground that the same was not given at the time of filing the original letter dated October 10, 2011. 12.2. The learned authorised representative submitted that the assessee has shown availability of the bulk funds of ₹ 50,00,000 (all loans from Adarsh Bank by the member of the family) and ₹ 13,40,000 (loan from Reliance Capital raised by the son) to explain ₹ 69,00,000 of investment. As the assessee has other incomes also and as the Assessing Officer has doubted the explanations only on the ground of not stating it all in the very first instance, a cash flow statement has been prepared and filed before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which he sent to the Assessing Officer for remand report. But it has been rejected by the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings on suspicion that it was a contrived statement. But, not a single mistake or incorrectness has been noticed or commented upon. It has been unreasonably rejected. 13. The learned Departmental representative on the other hand relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities. 14. Considered the rival su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pts from V. L. Prasanna's (employed unmarried daughter) ICICI Bank account, cash withdrawals from husband (husband was an Assistant Registrar of Co-op. Societies at the time) account apart from rental income for two preceding months. The assessee had also agricultural income receipts of ₹ 2,90,800 during the year. The Assessing Officer has not considered the explanation at all. The learned authorised representative submitted that during appeal proceedings, the assessee submitted cash flow statement to show the availability of funds. The Assessing Officer remarked in his remand report that the agricultural income would have been sufficient for family needs (page 7 of the paper book). In reply, the assessee submitted that for the family needs, there are sources of salaries of ₹ 3,00,000 per annum of the husband and of ₹ 7,00,000 of unmarried son (page 2 of paper book). The assessee further submitted that she filed copies of their returns before the Assessing Officer in support of the incomes. However, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that proof was not filed. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) omitted to take note of the fact of fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
