9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total income of Rs. 3,62,290/-. First notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 08-03-2010. The assessee vide communication dated 04-03-2009 retracted from the disclosure statement made during the course of survey. However, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 34,02,400/- as unexplained investment in the hospital building u/s. 69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30-12-2011, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld the findings of Assessing Officer. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri M.P. Machawe appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is M.B.B.S., D. (Ortho) and is practicing medical profession since January, 2004 in Palus. The assessee is having joint family consisting of his father, mother, brother and his wife. They have joint family agricultural land measuring about six acres in Yelavi (8 Kms. from Palus). The agricultural income of the family is from grape cultivation which are sold to wineries as well as in open market. The assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incurred on hospital during financial years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, as well as the source of fund to meet the expenditure. However, the authorities below brushed aside the details and the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee and remained fasten to the statement of assessee recorded during survey. The said statement is not supported by any corroborative evidence. The ld. AR pointed that the CBDT Circular dated 18-12-2014 supports the contentions of the assessee. No addition can be made merely on the basis of statement which is not supported by any documentary evidence. The ld. AR further placed on record year wise details of expenditure on construction of hospital building as well as source of funds to meet expenditure on construction of building in the financial year 2008-09. The ld. AR contended that the assessee is liable to explain expenditure on construction of building incurred during assessment year 2009-10 only. During the period relevant to the assessment year 2009-10 to meet the cost of construction the assessee had taken housing loan and term loan to the tune of Rs. 24,51,987/- from Bank of India, joint family funds Rs. 4,00,500/- , sale of gold ornaments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal on which the ld. AR has placed reliance is distinguishable on facts. As in the said case the books of account were available whereas in the case of assessee books were not found during the course of survey. The ld. DR prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee and upholding the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The solitary issue raised in the appeal is with respect to addition of Rs. 34,02,400/- made u/s. 69 of the Act on account of expenditure on construction of hospital building. During the course of survey, a statement of the assessee was recorded u/s. 133A of the Act. In the statement the assessee had stated that approximately Rs. 68,05,400/- has been spent on construction of hospital. To meet the cost of construction Rs. 35 lakhs was taken as term loan/housing loan from Bank of India, Yelavi Branch. Since, the assessee could not explain the source of remaining investment Rs. 33,05,400/-, the assessee admitted the same as additional income. The assessee further could not explain the outstandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of insurance policy from Bajaj Allianz Rs. 65,000/- vi. Borrowings from Shivaji Dnyanu Patil Rs. 1,50,000/- and Annasaheb Shinde Rs. 40,000/-. Total Rs. 34,58,549/- To substantiate source of funds the assessee placed on record a copy of receipt with respect to sale of gold ornaments of HUF to P.N. Gadgil jewelers at page 33 of the paper book, affidavit of father at pages 34 to 37 of the paper book, giving details of income received from sale of grapes to wineries viz. Saikripa, Pyramid and Nima etc. The amount of Rs. 4,00,500/- received from Pyramid wineries purportedly has been transferred to the Bank account of assessee. In so far as gift from father Rs. 93,000/- is concerned the ld. AR draws our attention to separate affidavit of the father at page 38 of the paper book. Shri R.B. Pawar, father of the assessee has admitted that he has given Rs. 93,000/- as gift to the assessee by withdrawing the amount from Bank of Maharashtra and the source of funds for making gift is the maturity amount of Life Insurance policy. The bank statement of father of the assessee is also placed on record at page 22 of the paper book. The assessee has received anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee in statement recorded u/s. 133A has no evidentiary value. No addition can be made on the basis of said statement alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported as 352 ITR 480 (SC). 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ajit Chintaman Karve Vs. ITO (supra) under similar circumstances where no incriminating material was found during the course of survey operation and addition was made only on the basis of offer made by assessee, the Tribunal observed : "Merely because an offer was made having no cogent basis or an approval of law that should not estop a taxpayer from correcting his mistake. Rather, it is a duty of the Revenue Department to tax the legitimate amount from a taxpayer. This is what exactly was directed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the very old administrative instructions for guidance of the Income-tax Officer on matters pertaining to assessment vide Circular No. 14 (XL-35), dated April 11, 1955." 11. In the present case, we find that although the assessee during survey proceedings had admitted R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
