9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer has erred in treating a sum of Rs. 8,30,000/- received from Mr. Murlidhar Patil as income of the appellant by treating it as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by disregarding appellant's submission as well as documentary evidences furnished during the course of proceedings before the lower authorities. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in treating a sum of Rs. 8,70,000/- received from Mr. Trimbakrao P. Shinde as income of the appellant by treating it as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by disregarding appellant's submission as well as documentary evidences furnished during the course of proceedings before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as that it had received Rs. 8,30,000/- from his uncle Shri Murlidhar Patil, Rs. 8,70,000/- from Shri Trimbakrao P. Shinde, his brother-in-law and Rs. 20 lakhs from Shri Uttamrao Patil. Statement of Shri Uttamrao Patil, father-in-law of assessee was recorded and in his statement, he stated that he had given sum of Rs. 20 lakhs in cash on various dates and gave Rs. 10 lakhs through Demand Draft, the source of such deposit was stated to be his savings out of agricultural income. He stated that cash was given to the assessee and his wife i.e. his daughter in Jalgaon and some cash in Pune, but he did not remember exact dates. He also explained that cash was kept at home. The amount was given on various dates to the assessee. Further, statement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of explanation of Shri Uttamrao Patil of Rs. 30 lakhs i.e. Rs. 20 lakhs in cash and Rs. 10 lakhs by DD was accepted by the CIT(A), against which the Revenue has not filed any appeal. 6. Now, coming to last addition i.e. Rs. 25 lakhs, which the assessee claims to have received as loan from his two sisters Smt. Lalita D. Sonawane and Smt. Meena R. Patil. The Assessing Officer had made the addition as no confirmation was filed and only copies of Aadhar cards of two sisters were given. However, before the CIT(A), confirmations from two sisters, 7/12 extracts of landholding were also filed and the assessee also produced receipts of sale of agricultural produce. But the CIT(A) did not accept the same as no details were furnished for purchasin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The loans have been received from related parties. One loan has been received by assessee from his brother-in-law of Rs. 8,70,000/- and the second loan has been taken from his uncle of Rs. 8,30,000/-. The CIT(A) in para 3.2.2 of appellate order while dealing with the said issue of receipt of cash from Shri Murlidhar Patil of Rs. 8,30,000/- and from Shri Trimbakarao P. Shinde of Rs. 8,70,000/- has referred to the evidences filed i.e. 7/12 extract, the quantum of agricultural income i.e. bills of sale of agricultural produce being submitted. The CIT(A) also comments that two loan givers had landholding and had even earned agricultural income. He further goes on to say that no direct link could be established by the assessee between agricul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
