9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned Associates which was engaged in the Architectural designing work. He filed his return of income for AY 2008-09 on 22.7.2008 which was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and thereafter the assessment was framed on 30.10.20011 u/s 143(3) rws 147 and the total income was determined at Rs. 32,52,920/- after making addition of Rs 30 lacs on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 24.9.2013 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 being the investment in Mutual Fund of Standard Chartered Bank under section 69B on the ground that it is unexplained investment in as much as the assessee explained the source of investment and therefore the question of addition does not arise. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 in A.Y. 2008-09 through Rs. 30,00,000 is credited in the bank account on 05-12-2006 relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 and that the said amount was received by cheque from M/s Rudra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence. Even in the books of Rudra Developers no such money owed,to the assessee is shown. In fact the balance sheet of M/s. Rudra Developers Pvt. Ltd. does not substantiate the theory of the Appellant. The assessee has claimed to have received back money from Rudra Developrs in December 2006, so the amount should have been shown as outstanding liability in the 'books of Rudra Developers as on 31.03.2006 and in immediately preceding year. No such liability is shown as on 31.03.2006 and for preceding years. It was stated that the amount was squared off/written off in the books of Rudra Developers, so it was not appearing in the balance sheet. How that amount was squared off/written off, is not explained and is not understandable and cannot be accepted without cogent reasoning and evidences. Following is the- copy of balance sheet of M/s, Rudra Developers Pvt. Ltd. for the period immediately before the alleged payment of Rs, 30 lacs to the Appellant:------------- 3.3.2 Under these circumstances, it is not difficult to see that M/s. Rudra Developers Pvt. Ltd. had no capacity of investing money of Rs. 1.5 crores in lands on behalf of the appellant and others when the entire share c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents. 9. Now, coming to the question of onus, the law does not prescribe any quantitative test to find out whether the onus in a particular case has been discharged or not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each, case, in some cases, the onus may be heavy whereas, in others, it may be nominal. There is nothing rigid about it. Herein the assessee was receiving some income. He says that it is not his income but his wife's income. His wife is supposed to have had two lakhs of rupees neither deposited in banks nor advanced to others but safely kept in her father's safe. Assessee is unable to say from what source she built up that amount. Two lakhs before the year 1940 was undoubtedly a big sum. It was said that the said amount was just left in the hands of the father-in-law of the assessee. The Tribunal disbelieved the story, which is, prima facie, a fantastic story. It is a story that does not accord with human probabilities. It is strange that the High Court found fault with the Tribunal for not swallowing that story. If that story is found to be unbelievable as the Tribunal has found, and in our opinion rightly, then the position remains that the consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Patel and which was been decided by H'ble Tribunal in favour of Assessee in ITA No 122/Ahd/2012 order dated 7.9.2012. He also placed on record the copy of the aforesaid decision. He therefore submitted that since the facts in the present case are identical to that of in the case of Krinaben K Patel, the issue is covered in favour of Assessee by the aforesaid decision and therefore the appeal of the assessee needs to be allowed. The Ld.D.R. on the other hand relied on the order of AO and CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before us, the Ld. A.R. has submitted that the issue in the present appeal is identical to that decided by the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Krinaben Patel, the copy of which is placed on record. In the case of Krinaben Patel (ITA No 122/Ahd/2012 order dated 7.9.2012, the co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal has held as under:- 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount of the assessee with M/s.Rudra Developers P. Ltd. ("RDPL" for short) was returned by them per cheque amounting to Rs.30 lakhs, which was invested by the assessee in mutual fund of Standard Chartered Bank, and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 16.04.2007 has invested this amount of Rs. 30 lakhs for purchase of mutual fund with Standard Chartered Bank. The assessee has also filed the copy of the bank account of "RDPL" wherein the amount in question of Rs. 30 lakhs has been debited to their account with Bank of Baroda on 05.12.2006. Merely because the assessee's father was a director in "RDPL" along with some other family members is no ground to make addition of the amount, sources of which has been wholly explained by the assessee. We find that the CIT(A) has not given any cogent reason for upholding the addition made under section 69B by the A.O. "RDPL" in part-B "Notes forming part of the accounts" of Schedule-7 has specifically detailed the relevant facts and the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs as repayment of contribution to the assessee, Krinaben Kirankumar Patel has been specifically mentioned under the head "related party disclosure". In these facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the source of credit entries in its bank account and the investment by her in the mutual fund with Standard Chartered Bank, and accordingly no case of addition under section 69B as undisclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
