Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 405 - ITAT HYDERABADUnexplained investment - Held that:- The assessee had clearly explained the source of ₹ 50 lakhs, from the loan taken by her, her spouse and her son. It was not brought on record any other utilisation for the loan taken by her and her family. Her son withdrew cash of ₹ 20 lakhs on July 21, 2008 and the same was utilised to pay on October 22, 2008. There is no other diversion or utilisation of ₹ 20 lakhs was brought on record. Considering the above discussion, in our view, the assessee has clearly explained the sources for the investment. The Revenue disputes on ₹ 12.50 lakhs payment for which there is clear evidence that her husband withdrew ₹ 5 lakhs and her son withdrew ₹ 7.50 lakhs from their respective bank account. Once the assessee demonstrates the sources clearly, there is no room for other views. There may be some delay in making the payment but the sources are clear, it has to be considered - Decided in favour of assessee Unexplained investment in house property - Held that:- The assessee has shown that the amount of ₹ 13.40 lakhs was received from her son, which was taken as loan by her son from Reliance capital. The Assessing Officer in his remand report rejected this source based on the fact that her son has not indicated that this amount was given to her. The assessee and her family has not invested the amount taken on loan or at least it was not brought on record by the Assessing Officer that they utilised the amount taken on loan for making any other investment other than the investment of construction of house, we cannot deny the benefit of accepting their contention. The family has no other source to make the investment. Hence, we accept the submission of the assessee and accordingly ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Unexplained credits - Held that:- From the record, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any other material to show that the assessee has other source of income. The assessee is earning only rental income. The assessee has claimed that she has income from agriculture also, we are not sure whether the same was declared in return of income, it was not placed on record. Even otherwise, as claimed, the assessee is not depended on the income to run the family. She is earning rental income of ₹ 26,000 per month. This itself is enough to make the above deposits in the bank. In the absence of any cogent material found by the Revenue, we give benefit of doubt in favour of the assessee and accordingly we delete the addition.- Decided in favour of assessee
|