Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1031 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment - purchase of agricultural land - Held that:- Mere payment by account payee cheques is not sacrosanct nor can it make non-genuine transaction as genuine. In view of the above, we confirm the addition of ₹ 7,55,000. We may also observe here that the assessee has furnished a list of unsecured loans referred to above, totalling to ₹ 18,80,000. However, the assessee claimed that he had received unsecured loans of ₹ 19 lakhs. Thus, there is a difference of ₹ 20,000 (Rs.19,00,000 - ₹ 18,80,000) for which no explanation has been given. Accordingly, the total addition comes to ₹ 7,75,000 (Rs. 7,55,000 + ₹ 20,000). Accordingly, we confirm the addition to the above extent. The action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot be held correct, particularly when he has not brought any material on record to disprove the explanation of the assessee. It is observed that the assessee had furnished details of properties which he had sold during the earlier years. In case of doubt, the Revenue authorities should have verified the contention of the assessee. In fact, no such exercise has been done. As regards the past savings of the assessee also, the authorities below have rejected the contention of the assessee without assigning any cogent reasons. Shri Gurbachan Singh had been doing pheri business for the past many years and he was also having agricultural income. There is no evidence on record to controvert the explanation of the assessee that he was the owner of agricultural land and he had also produced the Jamabandi for the year 1985 in support of his claim. It is also seen that for the year under consideration, the assessee had declared an agricultural income of ₹ 15,000 which has been accepted by the Revenue authorities. In our opinion, the Revenue authorities were not justified in rejecting the assessee's explanation on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee had invested a sum of ₹ 8,53,150 out of his past savings and out of sale of properties mentioned hereinabove. In view of the above, we confirm the addition of ₹ 7,75,000 and allow a relief of ₹ 19,78,150 (Rs. 11,25,000 + ₹ 8,53,150) to the assessee.
|