9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asim Choudhury, AR For The Respondent : Shri Dulal Chandra Mondal, JCIT-DR ORDER PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata dated 29.06.2016. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-23, Kolkata u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) vide his order dated 31.12.2009 for assessment year 2007-08. Shri Asim Choudhury, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Dulal Chandra Mondal Ld Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue. 2. Facts in brief are that assessee in the present case is an individual and derives his income from source of salary. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sundaram MF 2,00,000 Angurbala Dey AHMPD4918M Mother Sundaram MF 2,00,000 Purnima De AHSPD0460J Brother s wife Principal MF 3,00,000 Swaan Kr. Dutta AGXPD0242Q Father-in-law The assessee further submitted that the investment was made by the relatives and family members out of their own sources of fund. The assessee in support of his claim has also submitted the copies of affidavits along with their bank statement. The assessee further submitted that his PAN was used for the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is without any basis, disputed and arbitrary. 3. For that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that investments in the name of three relatives in which he has upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer in two out of the three the assessee was the third holder and not even the second holder. 4. For that the CIT(A) has erred on facts that none of the investors had their own PAN Nos at the time of making such investments while falling to call upon any details from the assessee in relation to the same. 5. For that the CIT(A) erred on facts and has not appreciated the facts that the investments were made from accumulated funds which was accumulated over the period of time and which was beyond the mandatory requireme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For that the order of the CIT(A) is perverse as the bank account statement provided were old and no evidence whatsoever was brought by either the AO or the CIT(A) to refute the evidence provided by the assessee. the evidence provided by the assessee has been disregarded. This is against the very basic tenants and provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 10. For that the CIT(A) has ignored the Affidavits filed by the different investors (1st holder of the investment without finding any contrary evidence and additions has been made erroneously on surmises and conjectures. 11. For that the ape reserves its right to add further to the above grounds and/or amend any one of them at or before the time of the hearing of the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the case. Admittedly, there is no dispute that assessee s name in all the investments is reflecting as second or third holder of such investment. There are four relatives of assessee who have made investment and they have given affidavits in support of such investments. We find that Ld. CIT(A) in the instant case has sustained the addition made by AO on surmise and conjecture. At this juncture, it is important to highlight the operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) as under:- As the appellant has actively facilitated the investments made in mutual fund units by giving his PAN and also providing logistical support. It is possible that he has routed his own undisclosed money through his relatives in the garb of inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffirmed by the assessee, any further enquiry against the assessee, in our view, was not warranted. As already stated that there is no presumption that the moneys lying in a joint account with a bank, vis-a-vis third parties other than the bank, belongs to only one of them or to both equally. In our view, therefore, there was no case for making any enquiry in the assessee's case. Any enquiry about the source of money lying in the bank account ought to have been directed only against Mrs. Yojana and not the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that there are some other material to show that the assessee is, in fact, the owner of these moneys or it is the assessee's investment except the fact that the moneys were lying in a join ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
