1986 (3) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the order of the AAC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee derived income from teaching profession, tuition, interest from loans given to borrowers as well as by the deposits in the banks. It is also pertinent to note that the husband of the assessee is a MBBS doctor, and employed as Medical Officer at Saurikh, Chhibramau. The assessee purchased a house for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 on 22nd July, 1983. Voluntary return from 1975-76 to 1983-84 were filed in both the cases. The total money utilised by the doctor in the purchase of the property by Smt. Sheela Gupta was Rs. 76,300 and after considering the accretion in the bank account of the assessee, as mentioned in the assessment order, the ITO added a sum of Rs. 18,087 as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fied to make the addition of Rs. 18,087 as unexplained investment. Hence, the same is deleted." 3. The departmental representative contended before us that the AAC was not justified in deleting the addition in question on the ground that he admitted additional evidence in the shape of affidavit of Shri Suresh Chand in violation of r. 46A and besides it he had also not considered the fact that the assessee was not in a position to save the huge amount and the theory of loans had been relied upon by him when the ITO set out a number of facts to show that the theory of loan propounded by the assessee was bogus and the same was built up to raise the capital for the purchase of the property. 4. On the other hand, Shri C.P. Gupta, Advocate, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing the assessment proceedings by the assessee. We, therefore, do not find any force in the contention of the departmental representative that the AAC had violated r. 46A of the IT Rules by admitting that fresh evidence. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the addition was rightly knocked off by the AAC as the Department failed to rebut the reliable evidence produced by the assessee before the ITO and the AAC. We, therefore, hold that there is overwhelming evidence on record to establish that the assessee had sufficient capital for purchasing the house property. Thus, the order of the AAC is hereby confirmed. In the cross objection, the assessee has only supported the order of the AAC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X