9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see could not possibly have any source of income, the addition on his hand is not justified within the parameters of the Income Tax Act. If at all, the additions could have been made, it could have been done either in the hands of the father or the mother of the assessee, therefore, we arrive at our considered view that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are hereby reversed and we direct the deletion of entire addition U/s 69 from the hands of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 155/Jodh/2017 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2017 - Shri Bhagchand, AM And Shri Partha Sarthi Chaudhary, JM Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) Revenue by: Shri S.K. Meena (JCIT D.R.) ORDER Per: Partha Sarthi Chaudhary, J. M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order dated 25/01/2017 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer for the assessment year 2008- 09, wherein the assessee has taken only one effective ground of appeal, which is as under: 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 3,21,000/- on account of undisclosed income U/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amended any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- + ₹ 6,50,000/-) which was taken by cheque of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rs. 5,00,000/- + ₹ 5,00,000/-) and ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rs. 1,50,000/- + ₹ 1,50,000) was received in cash. Copies of sale agreements are enclosed herewith. On these sales amount of consideration was also received in cash other than registered value, amount was deposited in Joint account on varies dates as follows: Sl. No. Date of cash deposit Amount of cash deposited in Joint account No. 0052000109134490 1. 14/02/2008 45,000/- 2. 15/02/2008 45,000/- 3. 16/02/2008 45,000/- 4. 18/02/2008 45,000/- 5. 19/02/2008 48,000/- 6. 20/02/2008 45,000/- 7. 06/03/2008 48,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,00,000/- of which ₹ 10,00,000/- was received by cheque and ₹ 3,00,000/- in cash. The stamp authorities have taken the sale value of this property at ₹ 14,48,000/- (7,28,000/- + 7,20,000/-). These facts show that apart from ₹ 3 lakhs received in cash as per the sale deed on the sale of land by the mother of the assessee, she also received some extra amount. This amount was deposited by her partly in the bank account of the assessee and partly in her bank account aggregating to ₹ 5,49,000/-. In fact, the cash deposit of ₹ 2,28,000/- in the bank account of the mother of the assessee was also transferred to the bank account of the assessee and out of such amount ₹ 5 lakhs was invested in UTI on 28.02.2008. The redemption proceeds of these units was thereafter credited to this account on 31.05.2010 for ₹ 4,93,975/-. Out of it, ₹ 4,93,000/- was withdrawn on 01.06.2010. This amount was utilised by Smt. Devi Lohani, mother of the assessee for purchase of agricultural land for ₹ 5 lakhs on 08.06.2010. All these facts show that the source of deposit of ₹ 3,21,000/- in the joint bank account of the assessee is out of the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in these circumstances the Tribunal was right in refusing to make an addition of the value of the investments to the income of the assessee. Ld. counsel appearing for the Revenue, has urged that the Tribunal as well as the High Court were in error in their interpretation of Section 69 of the Act. It was held by Hon ble Supreme Court as under:- We are unable to agree. As pointed out by the Tribunal, in the corresponding clause in the Bill which was introduced in Parliament, the word shall had been used but during the course of consideration of the Bill and on the recommendation of the Select Committee, the said word was substituted by the word may . This clearly indicates that the intention of Parliament in enacting s. 69 was to confer a discretion on the ITO in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee and the ITO is not obliged to treat such source of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory. The question whether the source of the investment should be treated as income or not under s. 69 has to be consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
