Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 933 - AT - Income TaxAddition under S.69 - unexplained investment - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that:- The Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 21,50,000 under S.69 of the Act, as the assessee could not explain the sources for the capital introduced by the assessee to his satisfaction. As for the amount of ₹ 6,50,000 claimed by the assessee to have invested from out of own funds, it comprises of (a) accumulated savings out of income from property and agriculture; and (b) contract receipts. The CIT(A) accepted the first source, since the amount represented by the same to the extent of ₹ 1,50,000 has been received from out of banking channels. As for the balance amount of ₹ 5,00,000 represented by contract receipts, in the absence of any cogent evidence, brought on record by the assessee, in support of the said claim, as the net presumed net profit/margin as available to the assessee, would not support the cause of the assessee that entire contract receipts are available for making the investment, more so, since the year under consideration was shown as the first year of contract and there was no accumulated sources of income other than the marginal incomes from the property and agricultural income. We do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) with regard to the own sources, by accepting the claim of the assessee partly. We accordingly reject the grounds of the assessee as well as the Revenue on this aspect, in their respective appeals. Even with regard to the amounts borrowed from mother, Smt. Anees Nadiraa and a distant relative, Shri Abdul Kareem, the reasoning given by the CIT(A) cannot be found fault with. The former being assessee’s mother, and the money having been lent from banking channels, there is no dispute with regard to either identity or genuineness of the transaction. Since the said creditor was also claimed to have been assessed to tax, the Assessing Officer ought to have verified the particulars given, if he has any doubt with regard to the credit-worthiness or genuineness of the transaction. Even with regard to other creditor, Mr.Abdul Kareem, the amount was claimed to have originated from an NRE Account with Andhra bank, and the said creditor having been away from the country, his wife, Smt. Fatima was claimed to have filed the confirmation letter on behalf of her husband. Merely on the ground that confirmation letter was filed by another person, the genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted, since there can be no doubt with regard to either identity of the creditor and his credit-worthiness, or the genuineness of the transaction. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), while accepting the sources explained by the assessee for investing the capital, by borrowing the monies from these two persons, viz. mother and distant relative - Decided against assessee and revenue.
|