TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hincha, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri A. Sundar Rajan, Jt. CIT(DR) ORDER PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 30.11.2011 of the CIT(Appeals)-I, Bangalore relating to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:- 1.1 The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) I, Bangalore, to the extent prejudicial to the appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) I, Bangalore has erred in solely relying on the information contained in Annual information return (AIR) in the process of sustaining the additions to income returned to the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d salaries. For the assessment year 2008-09, she filed a return of income declaring total income of Q 4,66,360. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO confronted the assessee with the copies of Annual Information Report (AIR) in respect of specified financial transactions which were required to be submitted by specified persons mentioned in section 285BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 r.w. rule 114E of the I.T. Rules, 1962. As per the AIR obtained by the Assessing Officer, the assessee made investments to the extent of Q 25 lakhs. The details of investment made by the assessee as revealed by the AIR were as follows:- Birla Sunlife Mutual Fund 5,50,000 Franklin Templeton Mutu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investments. The addition was made by the AO u/s. 69 of the Act. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the part of the AIR on which the AO made the impugned addition of Q 26 lakhs was not correct and that the assessee did not make any such investments as revealed in the AIR. The assessee also brought to the notice of the CIT(A) the decision of the ITAT Bangalore A Bench dated 22.10.2010 in the case of DCIT v. G. Selvakumar ITA No.868/Bang/2010 A.Y. 2006- 07, wherein the Tribunal had taken the view that when the AIR shows some investment and the assessee denies it, no addition can be made on account of unexplained investments without further evidence to show that the assessee made investments. The assessee also submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the information to strengthen the addition made in that case. Here there is no such scope at all, But this would not render the AIR wrong on the basis of allegation of AR that if contains arbitrary information. Hence the addition is held justified. However the details of additions as per the Assessment order is Date Details of Investment Amount in Rs. i. 10-03-2008 Mutual Funds 7 lakhs ii. 12-03-2008 Mutual Funds 7 lakhs iii. 12-03-2008 Shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company in which the investments were made nor does it give description of the shares like distinctive numbers etc. As rightly submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, on the basis of such incomplete details obtained by the AO in the form of AIR, it cannot be presumed that the assessee made investment of ₹ 7 lakhs. The law is well settled that u/s. 69 of the Act, there should be an investment made by the assessee and only then the question of explaining the source of funds of making such investment could be examined. 13. In the present case, the assessee denies having made any such investment. The onus is on the revenue to show that the assessee made investments. The AIR which is the only basis on which the AO has procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Operations), Banglaore-I denying the correctness of the AIR in so far as addition of ₹ 21 lakhs sustained by the CIT(Appeals) is concerned. The department has not acted on this letter. In the light of the above discussion and on the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the addition of ₹ 7 lakhs sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) deserves to be deleted. 15. Another investment of ₹ 7 lakhs in mutual funds stated to have been made on 12.03.2008 by cheque is again lacking of all material particulars like mutual fund in which the investment was made, the scheme of the mutual fund, etc. The discussion referred to above will be equally applicable to this addition also. 16. One more investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
