Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1628 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits in bank account and made cash payment for purchase of certain land - AO in the absence of any specific details rejected explanation of the assessee and held the cash deposit/payment as unexplained and made addition of the same to returned income - HELD THAT:- The assessee has provided necessary details in support of his claim and the AO in remand proceedings has neither doubted the genuineness of the relevant agreements/details nor given any contradictory finding. The claim of the assessee duly supported by documentary evidences cannot be rejected simply for the reason that the assessee could not produce the witnesses personally that too after lapse of several years from the relevant point of time. Therefore ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not admitted the additional evidences and in rejecting the explanation of the assessee to the extent relating to refund of advances on cancellation of relevant agreements. As transpired from the record, the assessee apart from his explanation to the extent of Rs.12,50,000/-, has not submitted any other details/evidences. Thus under the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.12,50,000/- is hereby deleted and the balance addition of Rs.20,64,000/-is sustained. Unexplained investment u/s 69 - cash deposited into the bank and payment made for purchase of agriculture land - HELD THAT:- As appears from the transactions contained in the bank accounts of the purchasers, it cannot be said that they have no means for paying relevant advance. There is a weight in the submission of the ld.AR that the burden lying upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, is to explain the source of funds and not the source of the source, therefore it is not the burden of the assessee to explain the source of funds of the purchasers paying advance for purchase of the land. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Labh Chand Bohra [2008 (4) TMI 731 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] held that so far as capacity of the lender is concerned, in our view on the face of the judgment of the Daulat Ram’s case [1972 (9) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT] capacity of the lender to advance money to the assessee was not a matter which could be required of the assessee to be established, as that would amount to calling upon him to establish source of the source. In this view of the matter, the addition made by the lower authorities is deleted. Thus solitary ground of the assessee is allowed
|