9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee in its appeal, it is relevant to bring out the facts leading to the assessment framed on the assessee. The assessee, late Shri S.R. Chavan was subjected to action by the CBI of Gandhinagar, being a government employee, and it was revealed that he had accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. On the basis of the inquiry made during this search by the CBI and the reports of the CBI, reassessment proceedings was initiated on the assessee, resulting in various additions being made to his income. Additions confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) have been challenged before us in various grounds raised before us. 5. The ground no.1 raised by the assessee reads as under: "1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,05,000/- on account of rental income earned on the immovable properties held in the hands of the appellant despite the fact that the respective owners have shown the rental income in their I.T.Returns." 6. In the above grounds, the assessee has challenged the addition made on account of rental income earned on immovable properties owned by his family members treating them to be benami properties of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I search team, stating the aforesaid mentioned facts. 8. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.Mahim Udma, reported on (2000) 108 TAXMAN 52 (Ker) had categorically held that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the owner is not real owner, always vests on person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of definite character, which would either directly prove facts of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. Copy of the order was placed before us. Our attention as also drawn to para 4 of the said order, which reads as under: "4. On consideration of the factual aspects, the Tribunal observed that there was no material to show that the assessee made investment for the property in question and/or regarding benami nature of transaction. Certain factual aspects were highlighted by the revenue, which were analysed in detail by the Tribunal to conclude that the revenue had failed to prove that the assessee was the real owner of the concerned properties. The Tribunal considered the relevant fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thers dated 05/02/24 from which certain pertinent facts were noted by us. The order reveals that CBI had filed charge sheet based on a preliminary report prepared by it making out a case of disproportionate assets owned by the assessee. That this case was subsequently dropped on the death of the assessee during the pendency of proceedings before the court where charges were to be framed. 11. Thus, it is evident that the case of the Revenue of the impugned properties being benami of the assessee rests merely on the preliminary report of the CBI which did not see the light of day by framing concrete charges against the assessee. 12. Further, we have perused the statement recorded by CBI of the assessee placed before us at P.B 57-61 and as rightly pointed out by the Ld.Counsel the assessee denied having anything to do with the said properties, he stated the names of the owners of the properties and also revealed sources from where investment was made by them. None of the above facts stated by the assessee was contradicted by the Revenue at any point in time. The entire case of the Revenue rests on the CBI Charge sheet framed by the CBI which was subsequently dropped. 13. It is evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the above evidences, there was no reasons to treat the amount of Rs. 11,477/- as income from badla business of the assessee. The ld.DR, however, relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) at para 12.1 as under: 21. We have heard the rival contentions. As noted above in earlier part of our order the entire case of the Revenue rests on the CBI charge sheet which ultimately did not culminate in any charges being framed on the assessee. Therefore, not much credence can be given to allegations levelled on the assessee in the charge sheet. Besides we have noted that Sh. Pawar filed an affidavit stating on oath that all income from badla activities carried out in D.D Enterprises related to him and had nothing to do with the assessee. The Revenue has been unable to point any infirmity in the affidavit of Shri Pawar. Even income from the badla business carried out in D D Enterprises was shown to be duly returned to tax by the said entity ,being proprietorship of Sh.Pawar. In the light of the above facts we do not find any substance in the addition made by the Revenue of income badla of Rs. 11,477/-. The said addition is therefore deleted. 22. Ground of appeal No.2 is allowed. 23. Now we t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahima Udma (supra), as referred to in ground no.1 above. 26. His contention was also to the effect that, the all such income, which were alleged to be relating to the assessee, were disclosed by the respective owners of the investments, which it was earned, in their returns filed for the said year, which was demonstrated to both the authorities below, and the said fact was accepted by the Department with no change in the stand till date. The ld.DR relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A). 27. We have heard contentions of both the parties. Since pleadings of the assessee admittedly with respect to the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of interest earned on FDRs. and Post-Office MIS owned by the family members of the assessee but treated to be benami investment of the assessee, is identical to that made in ground no.1 with respect to rental income earned from the alleged benami properties of the assessee our decision rendered in ground no.1 will squarely apply to the impugned issues also. We have dealt extensively with the contentions made by the assessee in ground no.1, at para 14 of our order above following which we hold that there is no case for treating th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
