9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mother Smt. Asha Sharma directly to the builder in the form of draft. In such a scenario, the assessee has discharged her burden to show the source of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Thereafter, if the AO had any doubt about the source of this amount, then the AO was at liberty to proceed against Smt. Asha Sharma which the AO has not done. Therefore, since the assessee has discharged her onus to show the source of ₹ 1,50,000/- no addition could have been legally made against the assessee as per the law in force in AY 1998-99, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition, therefore, I direct the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,50,000/-. This ground of appeal of assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 203/Pat/2018 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2020 - A.T. Varkey, Member (J) For the Appellant : Sudhir Kumar Narayan, AR For the Respondents : Ajay Kumar, DR ORDER A.T. Varkey, Member (J) This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Patna dated 05-06-2018 for assessment year 1998-99. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Sudhir Kumar Narayan has raised a legal issue that the AO had issued notice u/s. 148 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued under section 148 by an Assessing officer, who is below the rank of (Joint) Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the (Joint) Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. 7. So, according to Ld. AR since in this case Joint Commissioner did not approve the reasons for reopening, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law. I do not agree with the said contention of the Ld. AR because as per clause 28(C) of section 2 of the Act which defines the Joint Commissioner means also the person appointed as Additional Commissioner for the purpose of this Act. Therefore, since the AO has issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act after getting approval of the Additional Commissioner which the statute recognizes as also the Joint Commissioner by virtue of section 2(28C) of the Act, the issuance of notice by AO cannot be held as bad. So, the legal issue raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. Coming to the merits of the matter. The ground no. 1 is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of ₹ 1,98,847/- made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the appellant is at best self-serving statement without any basis. Accordingly, I'm inclined to confirm the action of AO in bringing of the chapter to tax in the hands of the appellant as unexplained investment is being upheld and this ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee is before me. 12. The Ld. AR Shri Sudhir Kumar Narayan contended that the assessee had shown in her Balance Sheet an opening capital balance of ₹ 2,05,000/-. The AO has made the addition stating that no returns have been filed by the assessee for the earlier years to substantiate the opening capital and the AO after taking note of the bank account noted that the balance as on 07.04.1997 was only to the tune of ₹ 6,153/-. Therefore, the balance of the amount i.e. ₹ 2,05,000/--₹ 6,155/-= ₹ 1,98,847/- was added u/s. 69 of the Act as unexplained investment and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition. According to ld. AR, the assessee had opening capital which could be seen from a perusal of the paper book page 10 to 12 which shows that the assessee had made investment in Indira Vikas Patra to the tune of ₹ 1,60,000/- in the year 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he builder directly It was further learnt that the mother of the assessee Smt. Asha Sharma. has no bank account in her name and the said draft no. 462587 dated 26.4.1997 was purchased from cash deposits from Indian Overseas Rank. It was further stated that Smt. Asha Sharma has some agricultural lands but she is not assessed to income tax. The authenticity and genuineness of the transaction is not proved nor credit worthiness of the mother of the assessee has been established. The assessee's AR had submitted a copy of the land receipt in the name of Smt. Asha Sharma. mother of the assessee. only. Mere furnishing of land receipt and payment of ₹ 1,50,000-by draft by the mother of the assessee does not proof the credit worthiness of Smt. Asha sharma and genuineness of the transaction. In CIT Vs. Precision finance Pvt. Ltd. 1994 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) it was held that even if the amount is received by account payee cheque it does not make it sacrosanct. In this case the payment was made to the builder by draft the source of purchase of draft remains unverifiable. In CIT Vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. 1998 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that even income lax file particulars where a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
