TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the son-in-law was that whether a sum of Rs.15 lakhs was given as a loan, while originally he said no, immediately, he changed it and stated that it might be considered loan without interest. On a specific question whether the loan was returned by the assessee to Senthil Kumar, while stating that it was not returned, he continued that the assessee had returned the share of property and gifted it to her daughter. Thus, the reading of the statement shows the unreliability of the claim made by the assessee as regards the receipt of money from her son-in-law. No hesitation in holding that the assessee had not discharged the burden as regards the source from which the investment had been made. - Order of ITAT is not correct - Additions u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ka. 3. On receipt of the information, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax sought for information as regards the filing of the returns for the relevant assessment years. It was found that the assessee did not disclose sufficient income to make an investment to the extent of Rs.22 lakhs. Thus, notice under Section 158BC was issued for the period 01.04.1996 to 21.02.2003 on 09.11.2005. 4. In response to this notice, the assessee filed return of income for the block period. As regards the investment in immovable property at 41, Giri Road, T.Nagar, Chennai, it was submitted that the assessee had purchased the property in the undivided share of 1/3rd for a sum of Rs.22 lakhs. The other 2/3rd of the property was purchased by her daughter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l" dated 22.04.2002, where, there was an advertisement relating to auction of her jewellery and silver articles. The assessee was directed to produce other details so as to accept the genuineness of the auction. Even then, it was not forthcoming. Thus, a sum of Rs.5,70,095/- was added back to the total income of the assessee as on the date of investment made by her in the purchase of immovable property i.e., on 24.04.2002. 7. The assessee submitted that her son-in-law contributed Rs.15 lakhs towards her investment in purchase of her share of property. In this regard, a statement was recorded from her son-in-law, which may be usefully extracted herein for better understanding:- " ......Rs.15 lakhs was contributed by me at the time of reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had gifted the share of the property to her daughter and that the son-in-law claimed that he had returned all the amounts too. In the background of these facts, the Income Tax Officer proposed to treat the investment in the property as unexplained. Thus, after hearing the assessee, the Officer passed the order of assessment apart from proposing penalty proceedings. 11. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who pointed out that the assessee had produced materials explaining her source of investment and that there could not be any addition at the hands of the assessee, viz., mother-in-law. Thus, on the evidence available before it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Tribunal, yet, going through the assessment order, we find that the issue does not appear to be a simple one. As already seen in the preceeding paragraph, the assessee was stated to be working as a Teacher in International Maritime Academy from the financial year 2001-02 to 2005-06. Although the assessee was called upon to produce bill regarding salary and other details, except photocopies of Form 16, no materials were furnished. Apart from this fact, the claim of the assessee that part of the consideration came from the sale of jewellery also appear to be not true. The assessee took the stand that she had sold her jewellery in auction through M/s.Giri Auctioneers. There are no details that on 23.04.2002, auction was conducted. Notice w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on as regards this deposit by the assessee in the sworn statement for making such deposit. Quite apart, the deposition recorded from the assessee's son in law also raised doubts regarding the payment. 17. It may be seen that one of the questions posed to the son-in-law was that whether a sum of Rs.15 lakhs was given as a loan, while originally he said no, immediately, he changed it and stated that it might be considered loan without interest. On a specific question whether the loan was returned by the assessee to Senthil Kumar, while stating that it was not returned, he continued that the assessee had returned the share of property and gifted it to her daughter. Thus, the reading of the statement shows the unreliability of the claim made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
