9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchased. There is no merit in the observations of CIT(A) in this regard and reversing the same, we delete the addition made in the hands of assessee, where the assessee has explained the nature of entries completely. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.156/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2019 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM And Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM For the Appellant : Shri Pramod Shingte For the Respondent : Ms. Sabhana Parveen ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-3, Pune, dated 12.11.2015 relating to assessment year 2011-12 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. The assessee has raised the following ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on account of loans received from three different parties, treated as unexplained investment in the hands of assessee. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was an individual and was deriving income from salary, house property and short term capital gains. For the year under consideration, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 15,89,663/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS to examine the source of cash deposits in the Saving Bank account as per AIR. The assessee explained that it had received cash from different persons totaling ₹ 37 lakhs. The Assessing Officer noted that in ICICI Bank, there were cash deposits on different dates during the year total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of assessee and hence, he treated the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and made addition of ₹ 37,20,000/-. The Assessing Officer also made another addition of ₹ 25 lakhs on account of amount received from sisters of assessee. 5. Before the CIT(A), 7/12 extract of agricultural land, confirmations from the parties were submitted but the CIT(A) did not accept the plea of assessee observing that loan givers had landholding and even earned agricultural income, but no direct link could be established by the assessee from the agricultural receipts to the amounts deposited into his bank account. The second explanation of creditors that they had given money for investment in shares was also not accepted as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as there was no proof of when the assessee received money. Another point raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that when amount was deposited through DD in bank, then no addition was warranted under section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment. He then, refers to various evidences filed in this regard and stressed that when the capacity of lenders was not doubted, there was no merit in the addition. 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is in respect of non acceptance of explanation furnished by assessee in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived from the said parties. We find no merit in the order of CIT(A) and the same is dismissed. Reversing the same, we delete addition of ₹ 8,30,000/- and ₹ 8,70,000/- in the hands of assessee. 10. Coming to the addition of ₹ 25 lakhs i.e. loan taken from two sisters of assessee, who had not paid cash to the assessee but had deposited the same through DD for the payment of purchase of property. The amount has been directly deposited into the bank account of assessee and there is no dispute about the same. The Assessing Officer holds it to be unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 11. First of all, the investments are recorded in the bank account and secondly, the assessee has explained the source of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
