9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of annual lettable value can be available for cash deposit in the Bank A/c especially when the assessee is showing rent receivable at nil. Since the reasoning given by the CIT (A) while deleting both the additions are cryptic and merely based on the submissions filed by the assessee, therefore, considering the totality of the fact of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after going through the computation of total income filed by the assessee for the impugned A.Y. CIT (A) shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds of appeal No. 1 2 are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Addition u/s 69B read with 115BBE - unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- Receipt of money from one company through banking channel, in our opinion, does not absolve the assessee from proving the three ingredients i.e., identity capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. In the instant case, it is not stated as to why the MOU was not filed before the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 500/- in various bank a/c the source of which is out of income from house properties to the tune of Rs.26,87,500/-, an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- pertains to amounts drawn from other banks and Rs.10,21,000/- pertains to accumulated cash balance in hand. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. From the various details furnished by the assessee, he noted that the assessee does not have any income from house property. Therefore, an amount of Rs.26,87,500/- pertaining to rental income was rejected by him. So far as the drawal from other Banks of Rs.4,40,000/- is concerned, the Assessing Officer accepted the same. So far as accumulated cash balance of Rs.10,21,000/- is concerned, the Assessing Officer, in absence of any satisfactory explanation given by the assessee, rejected the same. Thus, out of total cash deposits Rs.44,90,000/-, the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation of the assessee to the tune of Rs.4,40,000/- and invoking the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act made addition of Rs.40,50,000/-. 4. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee made elaborate arguments and filed certain additional evidences based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see could not explain satisfactorily regarding the availability of accumulated cash of Rs.10,21,000/-. Referring to the computation of income filed in the paper book, he submitted that the rent is offered as annual lettable value and the rent receivable is shows at Nil. Therefore, in absence of names of the tenants and the manner of receipt of such cash from the properties which are situated at different places such as Puttaparthi, Visakhapatnam and Gachibowli etc., such rental income as source for deposit in the Bank A/c could not have been accepted by the learned CIT (A) without proper verification. He submitted that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer had clearly brought on record the non-availability of various evidences such as rent receipts, name of the tenants etc., and the rental income has been declared on the basis of annual lettable value. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) is not justified in deleting the addition. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the learned CIT (A). He submitted that the assessee is having rental income of Rs.26,87,000/- for the year under consideration which is available to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specially when the assessee in his balance sheet is showing cash in hand and cash balance differently. In our opinion, the matter requires a revisit to the file of the learned CIT (A) to decide as to how rent declared on the basis of annual lettable value can be available for cash deposit in the Bank A/c especially when the assessee is showing rent receivable at nil. Since the reasoning given by the learned CIT (A) while deleting both the additions are cryptic and merely based on the submissions filed by the assessee, therefore, considering the totality of the fact of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after going through the computation of total income filed by the assessee for the impugned A.Y. The learned CIT (A) shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds of appeal No. 1 2 are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground of appeal No.3 raised by the Revenue reads as under: 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the learned CIT (A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and after considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, the learned CIT (A) sustained the addition to the tune of Rs.14.00 lakhs and deleted the balance addition of Rs.4,18,18,311/- by observing as under: 5.3.4. I have carefully perused the submissions made by the appellant, as well as the order of the Assessing Officer and in the remand report and the comments of the appellant thereon. From the facts figures filed as additional evidence during the Course appellant proceedings, it is clear that the appellant has received unsecured loans of Rs.4,60,00,000/- and Rs.2,10,00,000/-respectively from M/s Swiss India resorts Pvt Ltd and M/s Swiss India infrastructure Pvt Ltd through banking channels. The appellant has explained before the AO during the course of remand proceedings and also before undersigned that the loan transactions routed and duly reflected in the audited financials of the respective assessees. Therefore, it has to be construed that the appellant has got clear sources for the investments made by him during the financial year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the Director of the two companies from which he is stated to have obtained the amount. Both the companies are having meagre share capital and are showing nil income. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) without verifying the veracity of the statement and the creditworthiness of the above two companies was carried away by the submissions made before him and deleted the addition which under the facts and circumstances of the case is not justified. 15. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the learned CIT (A). He submitted that the assessee has filed all the details before the learned CIT (A) to substantiate the unsecured loan of Rs.2,10,00,000/- received from Swiss India Infrastructures (P) Ltd and Rs.4,60,00,000/- from Swiss India Resorts (P) Ltd and the amounts were received through proper banking channel. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) was fully justified in deleting the addition. 16. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27.4.2015 10,00,000 Un Secured Loan of Rs. 11,00,000/- from k venkatanarayana on 24-04-2015. 9.5.2015 10,00,000 LIC Loan Rs17,56,167/- on 27-4-2015. 4.6.2015 30,00,000 Un Secured Loan of Rs. 31,00,000/- from k venkatanarayana on 29-05-2015. 6.10.2015 50,00,000 Un Secured Loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- from k venkatanarayana on 05-10-2015. 6.10.2015 1,00,000 Out of business proceeds 29.10.2015 18,03,078 Un Secured Loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- from k venkatanarayana on 26-10-2015. 31.10.2015 2,00,00,000 Unsecured loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- rom k venkatanarayana on 30.10.2015 Improvement expenses from 30.10.2015 1,07,90,233 Unsecured loan of Rs.1,60,00,000 from k venkatanarayana on 30.10.2015 04.11.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant case, it is not stated as to why the MOU was not filed before the Assessing Officer and what was the reason for Mr. K. Venkatanarayana to transfer the money to the two companies which in turn has been transferred to the account of the assessee instead of directly giving the amount to the assessee. The learned CIT (A) in the instant case has failed to go into these issues. We find the learned CIT (A), in the instant case, without appreciating the observations made by the Assessing Officer in the remand report deleted the addition merely on the ground that the amount was transferred through proper banking channel without ascertaining the creditworthiness of the two companies and Mr. K. Venkatanarayana. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue. Needless to say, the learned CIT (A) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. Ground No.4 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
