Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 327 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits - unexplained expenditure on construction - receipt from unexplained sources - Unexplained investment in purchase of flat. - HELD THAT:- When before both the authorities below the assessee explained that the amount has been received from A and B, now, the question arises as to why the AO has not invoked the provisions of section 131 of the Act available to the income tax authorities for the personal presence of the depositor. CIT(A) has gone through the confirmations of the above two persons along with other documents filed by the assessee. Merely because the assessee has not filed an application for additional evidence, the claim of the assessee cannot be rejected. If the CIT(A) found that the assessee has furnished evidence which short of only an application for admission of additional evidences, it was always open for the CIT(A) to direct the assessee to file the additional evidences along with application for admission of the same and after accepting the same, he could have called for remand report or place the issue back before the AO for passing an appropriate order. We also find that the documents filed on record claimed to have been produced before the authorities below. Even DR could not controvert the documents filed by the assessee before us by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we are not inclined to support the order of the authorities below on this count also. Considering the above scenario and the factual aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) in this regard deserves to be deleted and accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the same. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. Unexplained deposit in State Bank of India bank account - HELD THAT:- We find that no material was brought on record either by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A) after examining the details and documents filed by the assessee before lower authorities to show that the assessee did not have the amount available with it out of earlier withdrawals made front different banks for making the same as deposit in the bank account as claimed by the assessee. In absence of any such material being brought on record, we find that the lower authorities were not justified in making the addition in the hands of the assessee as unexplained deposit in bank account. Therefore, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. No deposit into the HDFC bank account, the assessee has sufficient amount which was his earlier withdrawals as discussed above and as per the above observations of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y.2010-2011 in Pabitra Mohan Samal (supra) addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the same. Ground No.5 is allowed. Unexplained investment in purchase of flat. - AR submitted that a flat was booked by Shri Anup Hans, who under mutual consent surrendered the same in favour of the assessee and taken bank his booking amount. The assessee paid to him on 02.12.2010 out of his withdrawal from time to time - HELD THAT:- No credible evidence has been brought on record by the ld. AR of the assessee in respect of the contention that Shri Anup Hans has paid ₹ 1,00,000/- on behalf of the assessee as a booking amount for purchase of flat. Therefore, in absence of the same, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground No.6 of appeal of the assessee.
|