Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1027 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 - cash deposited towards repayment of home loan being 75% of total cash deposit - AR submitted that the CIT(A) uphold the addition by merely mentioning that what has been stated by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and simply by accepting the same in 2-3 lines - HELD THAT:- As undisputedly the impugned cash deposit was made by the assessee on her own and on behalf of her wife to their joint home loan account as repayment of home loan. Thus it can be presumed that assessee has not made any investment for acquiring any movable or immovable property. Therefore, the allegation of unexplained investment cannot be made against the assessee invoking the charging section u/s 69. From the relevant part of assessment order, we note that the AO has made addition by mentioning charging section as 69 and CIT(A) has also upheld the same without any change or without addressing the grievance of the assessee in this regard. Thus reach to a logical conclusion that the complete cash book statement clearly explains the source of cash deposit to the bank account of assessee, wherein the assessee has not only included cash receipts as salary and capital withdrawal from two partnership firms and a cash salary and has also reduced the amount of drawings for household expenses. The copy of return of income of wife of assessee and father of assessee co-jointly established that the other family members of assessee are also earning and contributing towards household expenses. Thus understanding the source of cash deposit during demonetization to the bank account of assessee is properly explained by the assessee by way of self speaking documentary evidence and explanation. Secondly, the AO has made addition u/s 69 of the Act which pertains to unexplained investments, whereas the assessee has not made any investment either in movable or any immovable property during the relevant period by way of using cash amount. CIT(A) has upheld the part addition without mentioning any charging section and impliedly adopting section 69 of the Act in the line of assessment order. Respectfully following the case of Sarika Jain [2017 (7) TMI 870 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], thus no hesitation to hold that the addition made by the AO by mentioning incorrect and irrelevant charging section is not sustainable and valid being bad in law. Decided in favour of assessee.
|